one-more-time said: I have a simple question for you, which I already asked once - "Would you legalize rape if we found out that 9 out of 10 woman secretly enjoyed it?" This is simple analogy. There always is a person who's dragged along in your joy-ride. Uhh, it's rape because the women DON'T enjoy it. Hence why it's forced. one-more-time said: Pardon for not having perfect English, it's not my native. Yet I think it's not that bad, compared to others, plus my vocabulary isn't shallow. Like I said, I don't want to come off condescending, but my tone is naturally sardonic, so sorry :( Your English is not good enough for these long, complex responses. It's particularly difficult because almost every one one of your sentences is run-on, and I can't find where the hell to break off from. |
lucjanMay 31, 2012 12:59 PM
 |
| I'm posting without having read the whole thread. Just saying. Morals are subjective, and I hope that's something most of us can agree on. To each his own, right? Is gay marriage immoral? Yes, it is immoral to those who see it as such (Mostly religious people). But that should hold no significance in law. The law governs everyone, not just religious people, so it must be objective. Gay marriage does not cause harm to anyone, so it should not be illegal. (That's right, you crazy christians - They aren't hurting you!) Although morals are subjective, certain things, although not inherently wrong (nothing is inherently wrong), become immoral for the sake of societal structure. Stuff like murder and rape, for example. I agree that those should be illegal, because it involves an individual harming another individual against their will. The law should serve to protect individuals from other individuals, and it does. But what the law shouldn't do is protect people from themselves. There should be no laws telling people what they can and can't do to themselves on their own time. If I want to smoke weed (I dont' smoke and never will) on my own time, in my own home, alone, who does that cause harm to? Myself, but I've accepted to risk and chosen my own path. It's a simple freedom, being able to live your life how you see fit. One with a similar mindset to mine might argue that hard drugs should also be legal, since people should have the choice to take them. I don't think so though, and I'll tell you why. After taking hard drugs, there is no more "choice" involved. I mean sure, it's feasible that you could go cold turkey on a hard drug addiction, but more often than not, addicts require help simply to stop. I don't think hard drugs should wind a user up in prison, perse, but I think they should be confined to a rehab clinic of some sort. Basically, it's a small exception to my previous point. In summary, morals are subjective, and thus don't belong in the law, something that governs people of many different subjective viewpoints. The law should not tell anyone how to live their life, but it should protect people from outwards threats. |
one more time said: stuff That's the ironic part. You believe your philosophical and moral stances are rational. I could have replaced the word 'feel' with 'think', it wouldn't have made a difference. Let's look at just your last post, for instance. You don't like your life -> no one like theirs. That's not rational. Life and death are the two most important things in life. That's not rational. Shouldn't only people who like it live on this planet? Enjoyment is a relative measure, so that's not rational. As for your analogy (that's not an analogy, by the way), sex is legal, yes. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
one-more-time said: Goodness, you don't half ramble on, do you? I'm not sure how to break this up and answer you point by point, because it is pretty much a stream of conciousness. Might I suggest that you stop referencing things like heroin addicts, big macs and similar analogies because they do not make what you say any clearer or easier to understand, and it makes you sound like an angsty teenager. I'm not saying you are an angsty teenager, but let's say I am not surprised others are reacting to you this way, and it's probably because of things like that. As far as I could gather from what you've said, you seem overly focused on humanity having some sort of final conclusion, and the absence of that final conclusion is what is causing you so much distress. Please, correct me if I am wrong about this but that is what I took from your post. Personally I am not concerned so much with the final conclusion of life, whether such a thing exists or not. What does matter to me is the journey that we make through life, and that includes both the bad things and the positive things. A life free from misery seems like a fantasy and it is true that had I not been born, chances are I would never have experienced misery. But I wouldn't have experienced anything else either and for me, living in a world with so much to experience would make not existing a bit of a waste. Both a waste for me, and a waste of the world. I also think that you're making the presumption that everyone else feels the same way you do, and if the people on this thread are anything to go by then that is clearly not true. Should everyone else be denied the chance to exist simply because you don't see the purpose of it or because you want to shelter them from misery? In my experience not being allowed to make choices, even if those choices are made to protect me, brings its own form of misery. My parents did not want me to leave home for University because they were concerned I wouldn't be able to hack it out there in the real world. They are convinced they were right and I am convinced they weren't. In either case, taking the decision in their own hands without asking me how I felt about it made me feel miserable. How can you be sure, by preventing other people from existing, they wouldn't feel the same way? I suppose they won't because they were never brought into existence in the first place, but as I said before we still have the opportunity to take our own lives if we are unhappy with them. You haven't done yourself in yet, and that is because you have found a purpose, even if that purpose is something futile. And I presume that if you were only concerned for yourself, you would have killed yourself by now, so as to avoid the inevitable suffering that awaits you in later life. Why can't others have a purpose in their lives either? Anyway, as a conclusion, if you had somehow been given the opportunity to prevent my existence, then I would not have thanked you for it. What makes you think you should be able to make decisions on the behalf of others, and why do you think you know what is best for them? |
| 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!" |
one-more-time said: you better find a good argument for it, otherwise you're just ignorant douchebag. I don't even have to demonstrate why asexuals are scum (or rather that asexuality is scummy) it's pretty obvious to everyone who doesn't profess it |
skutieos said: I'm posting without having read the whole thread. Just saying. Morals are subjective, and I hope that's something most of us can agree on. To each his own, right? Is gay marriage immoral? Yes, it is immoral to those who see it as such (Mostly religious people). But that should hold no significance in law. The law governs everyone, not just religious people, so it must be objective. Gay marriage does not cause harm to anyone, so it should not be illegal. (That's right, you crazy christians - They aren't hurting you!) Although morals are subjective, certain things, although not inherently wrong (nothing is inherently wrong), become immoral for the sake of societal structure. Stuff like murder and rape, for example. I agree that those should be illegal, because it involves an individual harming another individual against their will. The law should serve to protect individuals from other individuals, and it does. But what the law shouldn't do is protect people from themselves. There should be no laws telling people what they can and can't do to themselves on their own time. If I want to smoke weed (I dont' smoke and never will) on my own time, in my own home, alone, who does that cause harm to? Myself, but I've accepted to risk and chosen my own path. It's a simple freedom, being able to live your life how you see fit. One with a similar mindset to mine might argue that hard drugs should also be legal, since people should have the choice to take them. I don't think so though, and I'll tell you why. After taking hard drugs, there is no more "choice" involved. I mean sure, it's feasible that you could go cold turkey on a hard drug addiction, but more often than not, addicts require help simply to stop. I don't think hard drugs should wind a user up in prison, perse, but I think they should be confined to a rehab clinic of some sort. Basically, it's a small exception to my previous point. In summary, morals are subjective, and thus don't belong in the law, something that governs people of many different subjective viewpoints. The law should not tell anyone how to live their life, but it should protect people from outwards threats. I feel there's a deconstructionist attempt to separate morals from law and it isn't too successful |
| What he really means is he's going through a dry spell and people keep calling him an asexual. It would get on my nerves too. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| How the hell does the lack of sexual attraction to others make someone scummy? |
  |
lucjan said: Uhh, it's rape because the women DON'T enjoy it. Hence why it's forced. Life is forced. And people seem to be okay with that that some people look around and call life what it is - shit, when themselves don't see a thing over their delusions, the fake cheese, their pink balloon party. They'll keep dragging them along, "you just stay at back and get over your pesimist attitude, we're having fun here, don't you see". It's a simple question, imagine that if we found out that one out of ten women secretly enjoyed rape, would that be okay for you? And for the sake of asking, I'll give you one more - How many people have to die in WW3, in a horrific, unimaginable way, for you to say "No more, this is too much"? How many? Your English is not good enough for these long, complex responses. It's particularly difficult because almost every one one of your sentences is run-on, and I can't find where the hell to break off from. Seems that English has different use of comma than my language. @Josh, shoulda give up after your first one-liner. Bye. |
| LUL |
Gogetters said: How the hell does the lack of sexual attraction to others make someone scummy? Dude, this is an anime forum. Almost everyone here is a tentacle raping monster. Asexuals are just out of their element here. |
|
| And that makes them scum, how? |
|
Gogetters said: And that makes them scum, how? MAL, being an extension off Japanese entertainment, and thus Japan, is xenophobic. Flawless logic. Learn it. |
|
Kaiserpingvin said: Law is nothing but institutionalized morality. What part of it do you think isn't based on one moral precept or another? It's impossible to seperate them. Although most laws, if not all of them, are based off of some moral precept or other, that does not mean you cannot separate morality from law. Indeed, I do not quite see how for example, one could bring morality into the reasoning behind many laws regulating accounting, banking or other financial institutions. Most of the laws in this respect are based not so much on morality as on ensuring efficiency and uniformity in a system that might otherwise not be so. Of course there are still many laws of the kind that are made to avoid theft of a corporate kind (anti-corruption laws and the like), which are moral-based laws, but not every law is based of off morality. The above might seem a bit vague, my apologies for not being a law student and giving more concrete examples. Now, if you meant to say that a law is the state's attempt at choosing for us what is good and what is bad (and hence impose some kind of social moral code), then yes, you're right. Nonetheless, to say that such laws are always based off of some form of morality seems to go a bit too far. I doubt that Berlusconi had some moral precept in mind when he made the Presidential office unprosecutable. lucjan said: Gogetters said: And that makes them scum, how? MAL, being an extension off Japanese entertainment, and thus Japan, is xenophobic. Flawless logic. Learn it. Also, yo, stop trolling before I have to do something about it. Or l2logik. |
SoheiMay 31, 2012 1:26 PM
one-more-time said: Life is forced. And people seem to be okay with that that some people look around and call life what it is - shit, when themselves don't see a thing over their delusions, the fake cheese, their pink balloon party. They'll keep dragging them along, "you just stay at back and get over your pesimist attitude, we're having fun here, don't you see". It's a simple question, imagine that if we found out that one out of ten women secretly enjoyed rape, would that be okay for you? And for the sake of asking, I'll give you one more - How many people have to die in WW3, in a horrific, unimaginable way, for you to say "No more, this is too much"? How many? I don't really understand your logic... Seems that English has different use of comma than my language. There's a style bifurcation in English between British and American style. Regardless, your English does suffer. You're Latvian, and it's not your first language, so I'm not criticizing you at all. I'm sure you're excellent in your own language, but what you're writing about, and the themes you're using, aren't being expressed well. |
|
Gogetters said: How the hell does the lack of sexual attraction to others make someone scummy? I have never had less of a clue about something in my life, haha. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Sohei said: Also, yo, stop trolling before I have to do something about it. Or l2logik. I have a hard time figuring out why he's taking that comment seriously. So I treat stupid questions with stupid responses. |
|
| He's not the one who made the point, gogetters. I don't think he believes that, nor understands why the other guy believes that. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
| In short, no. Paraph said: You don't need a law to be a moral person. And we certainly don't need the government to provide laws on a completely subjective matter such as morality. Do you really want to be forced to comply with other people's morals? Humans are social animals. To stay together peacefully people have classified morals; these morals become defined in a society and then are reflected in our laws. What if volunteering on the weekends at a homeless shelter was a law? Donating part of your paycheck to a charity? Do you really think that if heroin were legal everyone would run to their local pharmacy to try it out? |
| My apologies, children, for I am afraid I cannot save you all. |
| That's enough trolling follow up posts for now, stop. To remind some of you of these forum guidelines (which i'm sure all of you have revised to memory: "1. A discussion involves making meaningful contributions to a topic extraneous to oneself." http://myanimelist.net/forum/?topicid=270847 "Your imperfect mind wouldn't understand my perfect logic." is not a meaningful contribution. Banning is tedious business, but continue and you're asking for it. |
Darklich528 You don't need a law to be a moral person. And we certainly don't need the government to provide laws on a completely subjective matter such as morality. [/quote said: This has gone too far I think I might have gone too far in a few places |
lucjan said: one-more-time said: Life is forced. And people seem to be okay with that that some people look around and call life what it is - shit, when themselves don't see a thing over their delusions, the fake cheese, their pink balloon party. They'll keep dragging them along, "you just stay at back and get over your pesimist attitude, we're having fun here, don't you see". It's a simple question, imagine that if we found out that one out of ten women secretly enjoyed rape, would that be okay for you? And for the sake of asking, I'll give you one more - How many people have to die in WW3, in a horrific, unimaginable way, for you to say "No more, this is too much"? How many? I don't really understand your logic... 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. |
| 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!" |
Sohei said: "1. A discussion involves making meaningful contributions to a topic extraneous to oneself." How dull. It is what it is, though. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
AnnoKano said: More rant incoming. Humans are full of delusions, not only God delusion but the "whole life purpose", "Santa-claus", "Merry Christmas" delusions. Delusions are everywhere and everybody, in my opinion, seems to be running from the truth that is: we are part of unintelligent desing that has basically created a carnage slaughterhouse, and you all seem fine with that. What I'm doing is arguing for minimization of the suffering, I value suffering. I say consciouss animals, any animal, any sentiet experience suffering has value. I think that the only value in universe is sentience, feeling organisms create value, there is no value till one exists. We're hungry, we manufacture our potato chip and we chase it on a little wheel and we think we accomplish something, we just redundantly do accomplishment thing, over and over again chasing ego gratification that is pretty superstitial and meaningless. I think it's a zero sum game, life has been a preposterous fail, preposterously wasted the most valuable commodity in the universe. Unintelligent design has squandered it preposterously because it doesn't have a brain and it doesn't know that suffering matters but suffering does matter. I would argue that job of philosophers is to understand the entire chessboard, to understand that you don't live your life just to be happy. You have to live life in the context of the game you're playing in. You can't dump dioxin is somebody else's yard, you can't rape women, you can't do a lot for things because you are stealing too much value from the world for your gratification. We all can understand that it's what philosopher does, he understands the basic ethical equations and he draws those up. I'm saying: the basic ethical equation, if we look at it, - there's no rescue mission for the human race, it can accomplish absolutely nothing and it's a high risk game, a very high risk game. The risk is the suffering, we all know that certain number of people will commit suicide, people will have Alzheimer disease and all kids of other things which might make them say "I regret ever being born", Mark Twain said it, we can go down the list of human beings who made the statement "I'd rather not have been, because I've seen too much, it's too sloppy, too ugly, too messy." My solution is that this is conversation that human race needs to go back to having it, they had it 2000 years ago and the Christians and the religious nuts took over the philosophical conversation, we stopped talking about the meaning of life, we stopped talking as Buddha did, we stopped talking like all the great Greek philosophers did about what exactly we're caught up in. Now we have all this evidence, we have Evolution, we have DNA, we have all this understanding of how the universe functions. And no we have the evidence to actually make the argument: "Guess what, this is insanely stupid, we have a bunch of organisms chasing an ego gratification, it's a fake hunger for a fake cheese, we're running a wheel at a very high risk creating preposterous amounts of suffering and you gain absolutely nothing, there's no point in making one of these." Would you think it would be ethical to implant life on Mars, to implant life on Pluto? I can agree that it's radical to say: "No, you cannot have children". I think we should at least oblige people to show enough competance that they would show to drive a car or to do something else in a society to conduct the biological experiment that is creating a new human being and creating a sentient being that is going to suffer potentially, yes, it's a significant fact that may in fact not appreciate being born. If I personally could say none will be born, yes I wouldn't let it happen. You can start with caring about things and that's just fine with me, any sentient you care for is a positive thing. I'm saying that the end game logic is the visualization of the game, the chess board. You're fine with your life. I can make the same argument and say that Fukushima worked for 40 years, but you can't count that one time it went wrong. It's really nice that you say that you're happy. Well, I'm not happy. I think this place is disgusting, I think the human race is disgusting, the whole carnage mechanism is disgusting, it's vile, it's grotesque. Ten lion cubs for every one lion that gets to maturity. The attrition is obscene and disgusting, I find it insufferable every day of my life. Fine, I'm the Fukushima, what I'm asking for you to do is balance that equation, you justify to me why you have a right to say: I feel good about it and I'm going to invest in it. I'm the one you're going to pull the straw for. I'm the one who gets stuck with the straw. Happiness is subjective bibble-babble, we can give people through chemistry, even through electricity we can give them glory moments, we can give them all this stoic, proud "I'm the greatest gladiator in the world". We can give to to everybody the illusion of being superheros, all this stuff and that is all there is - simplistic biological need gratification, and people are sitting making it a stoic "I'm pushing the magic boulder up the magic hill of Purpose", the fact is that there is no purpose. Both a waste for me, and a waste of the world. Are you trying to argue that universe has a need in you or your experience? That you, when you're non-existant, have a need? What makes you think you should be able to make decisions on the behalf of others, and why do you think you know what is best for them? I'm not the one who has to explain why I want to stop experiment, it's you people, running this experiment, you have to explain why you have a right to impose a life on someone who might not appreciate it. You're gambling with others lives, you're playing the "trap-door" game. |
one-more-timeMay 31, 2012 4:19 PM
| LUL |
| @one-more-time You can not know a "child" will regret being born beforehand, so I don't see how this argument holds water so to speak. Everyone will suffer, this is true nor is it specific to human life, however not everyone will wish they hadn't been born. Nor can anyone here claim the majority would. If they do, then they're pulling numbers out of their ass, because there is nothing that would constitute concrete proof of such a claim. That goes for Benatar's claims as well, which are unsubstantiated when he talks of quality of life. Back to having kids, could I have a child who commits suicide...yes....could they have some disease, of course, could they regret being born, it's possible. However, are we talking about the norm? I don't think so. I'm a middle class white male, to be quite honest that puts my children in a pretty good starting position in life. If for some reason however, they wished at some point they would rather not have been born, then they do have the choice like everyone to take their life. It is not the most desirable option in my mind, but it is there regardless. However, this angsty attitude is really shortsighted. Suffering in developed nations is largely fleeting or one that's a matter of choice for majority of individuals. You further seem to imply that only 1 out of every 10 children survive. I'd love to know where you came up with this data. I'm not sure if you're implying they are casualties, they are unhappy or what, in either case I find it to be an unsubstantiated claim. In the end, why do I have a right to impose life by reproducing? Simply put, because I can and find so desirable. At the end of the day I do not need another reason. Perhaps that is a gamble, but it one that I believe to be in my favor. If being happy and this way of life is all delusional, then I will take the delusion over your self-proclaimed reality. =) To be quite honest, to me it sounds like you despise your parents some kind of fierce for birthing you, and can't comprehend why everyone else doesn't feel the same so are grasping at straws. It should be evident, that your life experiences can not be projected onto others so easily. |
rekindledflameMay 31, 2012 5:00 PM
| |
| By this person's logic, everyone should kill themselves so that there's no more suffering in the world, because no one exists. What a stupid argument. I'd easily take existence in this world over nonexistence, regardless of the suffering I have gone through and will inevitably go through. Sure, the world's not perfect--far from it--but it's all we have. And you should make the best of it while you haven't met the already inevitable end that you so desire. |
| @rekindledflame, You can not know a "child" will regret being born beforehand, so I don't see how this argument holds water so to speak. They're not missing out on anything if they're not born, because that happiness will remain imaginary. Everyone will suffer, this is true nor is it specific to human life, however not everyone will wish they hadn't been born. People necessarily suffer and necessarily cause suffering. Suffering should be prevented; therefore the creation of new people should be prevented. Antinatalism is not only about human species, it's about all sentience. Nor can anyone here claim the majority would. If they do, then they're pulling numbers out of their ass, because there is nothing that would constitute concrete proof of such a claim. Sadly enough, majority is okay with this carnage outside of your window. People want to ignore the reality of 'nature', the carnage suffering and brutally short lives of most animals and many humans. They want to wax lyrical about how wonderful and majestic the world is and ignore the 24/7 smorgasbord of horror 'life' is for most sentient organisms on Earth. That goes for Benatar's claims as well, which are unsubstantiated when he talks of quality of life. Read his book with an open mind. If for some reason however, they wished at some point they would rather not have been born, then they do have the choice like everyone to take their life. But you cannot have it, legally, you have to do it the dirty way, which will not always succeed and can make your life even more miserable. You further seem to imply that only 1 out of every 10 children survive. I'd love to know where you came up with this data. Lion cubs. We have such animal on our planet - lion. In the end, why do I have a right to impose life by reproducing? Simply put, because I can and find so desirable. At the end of the day I do not need another reason. Perhaps that is a gamble, but it one that I believe to be in my favor. If being happy and this way of life is all delusional, then I will take the delusion over your self-proclaimed reality. =) I do it because I can do it! Marvelous answer. Live your life as you please but do not think as it's worth imposing on one which might not appreciate it. That nature has given me a fist that does not mean that I have a right to punch somebody. That the nature has given me ability to procreate does not mean that I have a right and that I should impose my will and gamble with else's welfare. To be quite honest, to me it sounds like you despise your parents some kind of fierce for birthing you, and can't comprehend why everyone else doesn't feel the same so are grasping at straws. It should be evident, that your life experiences can not be projected onto others so easily. I don't hate my parents, I see their action as immoral and unacceptable. Yes, I cannot comprehend how people can look at this carnage slaughterhouse and say "It's okay, that's how life is". Then let me ask you - How many people should die in WW, in a horrific, unimaginable death for you to say "No, this is too much, life is too stupid." How much? Would it be every single person on earth? Sephiex said: By this person's logic, everyone should kill themselves so that there's no more suffering in the world, because no one exists. What a stupid argument. How did you come from "Do not procreate, do not impose life on someone else" to "You should kill yourselves". Antinatalists are not suggesting that you should end the living lives, it's suggesting that giving birth, imposing life is immoral and should not be done. Don't hop in and call my arguments stupid when you yourself cannot comprehend them and misinterpret. Makes you look kind of stupid. |
one-more-timeMay 31, 2012 6:00 PM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: How did you come from "Do not procreate, do not impose life on someone else" to "You should kill yourselves". one-more-time said: People necessarily suffer and necessarily cause suffering. Suffering should be prevented; You know how you're trying to prevent suffering? You're preventing existence. Since by merely existing one inevitably suffers, and suffering should always be prevented, then by that logic everyone should cease to exist. |
Sephiex said: I'd easily take existence in this world over nonexistence, regardless of the suffering I have gone through and will inevitably go through. Sure, the world's not perfect--far from it--but it's all we have. And you should make the best of it while you haven't met the already inevitable end that you so desire. And this is coming from an emo. Class dismissed. |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Sephiex said: You know how you're trying to prevent suffering? You're preventing existence. Since by merely existing then one inevitably suffers, and suffering should always be prevented, then by that logic everyone should cease to exist. You used your own logic to call my argument/s stupid. You're putting words in my mouth "Everyone should kill themselves", I'd love to see a quote of mine which suggests that we should do that. No misquotation, no misinterpretation. |
| LUL |
| "My logic" was merely me attempting to show you how to connect the dots for your own logic. Didn't work...you probably wouldn't be a very good programmer. |
| I'm still waiting for a quote. Don't use your emo suicidal logic. |
| LUL |
| The quote is in the negative space. I'll cease to respond any more to a rather boring and unproductive discussion now. |
Sephiex said: The quote is in the negative space. I'll cease to respond any more to a rather boring and unproductive discussion now. You do understand that ending your life at this time is not legally possible? The Exit can fail and it can bring even more suffering. Why would I suggest such thing when I'm for minimizing the suffering? |
| LUL |
| I was about to start posting Emo Dad, but I guess the thread is back on topic. Shame. On topic then: how do you see us making the transition, from where we are now, to non-existence? How do we go about that in a way that minimizes suffering? Does such a way exist? |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
Post-Josh said: How do you see us making the transition, from where we are now, to non-existence? How do we go about that in a way that minimizes suffering? Does such a way exist? That is not Antinatalism. But I might respond if I'll be willing to. I like AnnoKanno and rekindledflame, because they at least show interest in the subject, not only this particular subject, and will contribute something to discussion and will not say "Please be so kind and shut the fuck up now". Anyways, I'm going to get some sleep. |
| LUL |
| I have no regrets. YOLO and such. You've stated on several occasions that you want to minimize suffering, is that not done through extinction (under antinatalism, which says things only go downhill from birth)? Also, if extinction is not an antinatalist ideal, then why is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement considered an antinatalist group? |
LoneWolf said: @Josh makes me sad to call myself Canadian. |
one-more-time said: Live your life as you please but do not think as it's worth imposing on one which might not appreciate it. That nature has given me a fist that does not mean that I have a right to punch somebody. That the nature has given me ability to procreate does not mean that I have a right and that I should impose my will and gamble with else's welfare. There's a rather large distinction to be made here. In the case of you punching someone you are directly causing suffering. Birth at best I feel could only be argued as indirect. If you choose to punch someone you made that choice...if you choose to reproduce you do not choose for your child to have various diseases. Now in the case of disease which is what I feel you fixate on in quite a few posts, if you are going to reproduce you do have some responsibility in knowing your families genetics, this allows you to determine a rough estimate on the odds of what any particular disease are. Of course it could still happen, but every part of life is a risk. I would argue that if I suffer, it is not my parents fault for birthing me, unless they directly caused said suffering (child abuse/negligence), but if some bully punches me in the face, this can not be directly linked imo, to my birth. Other Examples: Do you drive? If you get in a car accident you have caused someone's suffering. So one can conclude one should not drive to minimize the chances of causing such. You could apply these indirect scenarios to damn near anything. If you hadn't done X, Y wouldn't have happened, which caused Z to suffer. Of course, I have no problem with one who has this outlook, but it's curious to me why there's only such a focus on the negative aspects of life. Making the assertion that the negative out ways the good is rather speculative. I'm not even aware of a standard of quality that could be applied to the entire human race to even suggest such a thing one way or another. How much good does it take to negate a negative experience and how do you objectively apply that to such a diverse Earth? What I am actually seeing, is that you think X behavior is detrimental, so regardless of person Z's belief, you think he causes suffering/disaster or what have you because he does not adhere to the same conclusion that X is detrimental. That's projecting your morals onto the human species as a whole though and I just can't see how your moral compass points true, while everyone elses does not, unless I'm somehow misunderstanding. Even on something basic, like if I were to ask you what is suffering, there are things we would agree on and things we wouldn't, so at the end of the day which of us would be right? I suppose a better question is, who decides what is moral/immoral, you the individual, or the collective whole? You may well conclude that driving is immoral because of the example previous, so you choose not to drive, but should that moral standard apply to the rest of the world based on a minorities belief system? Would the Earth be a better place if life didn't exist....maybe (though I do not actually believe this)....but what would it matter without life? We should probably wrap this up though, it's becoming a conversation between 2-3, rather than an actual discussion about the topic originally posted (or at least I feel this is no longer about Anno's original topic). It's been interesting though, I have not met anyone with this particular philosophical stance outside of books or various articles, but I can't say I am any closer to buying into this philosophy, of course you probably weren't looking for converts anyhow. =P |
rekindledflameMay 31, 2012 9:57 PM
| |
Post-Josh said: I was about to start posting Emo Dad, but I guess the thread is back on topic. Shame. Emo dad? Hell, post it anyways! I want to see emo dad :D Sephiex said: You know how you're trying to prevent suffering? You're preventing existence. Since by merely existing one inevitably suffers, and suffering should always be prevented, then by that logic everyone should cease to exist. Life isn't linear like that, so not really. And by Camus logic, suffering is absurd. Don't take it to heart. None of it inherently matters. We give meaning to everything, and thus can easily contrive meaning for existence in one way or another. After all, all "meaning" is self-fabricated in one way or another, |
|
| You can't enforce morality lol |
Post-Josh said: You've stated on several occasions that you want to minimize suffering, is that not done through extinction (under antinatalism, which says things only go downhill from birth)? Also, if extinction is not an antinatalist ideal, then why is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement considered an antinatalist group? Sorry, my bad, thought it's through suicide. The ideal would be extinction through non-procreating and sanitizing the planet. That seems quite unreal for normal people to accept, right? The closest middle-ground I can think of is parental licensing, having legal right over your death(I don't want to write one more essay on this) so money can be spent on people who want to live. In the end you don't legalize a little bit of slavery, you don't legalize a bit of wife beating, child molesting, what ever the thing is it wouldn't say you just can't do that shit. You just don't let a little bit of it, that doesn't make any sense. You abolish it, you abolish the irresponsibility, you abolish the imposition, that is what this is about, procreating is an imposition. rekindledflame said: Of course you probably weren't looking for converts anyhow. =P Exactly, this is anime forum. It just turned out that I brought up this subject. I'd have to write few more essays to lay out all my thoughts on Antinatalism subject and that is what I'm not feeling to, especially on anime forum. Do you drive? If you get in a car accident you have caused someone's suffering. So one can conclude one should not drive to minimize the chances of causing such. Comparing driving to giving birth is a bit nonsensical. Most drunk drivers don't kill anyone... does that mean they should keep doing it? And should they be considered decent ethical citizens? Because the non-existent cannot be deprived of existence; because the price is an extraordinary amount of (human) suffering; because the only reason to reproduce is a selfish one; because it is an imposition without the individuals consent - those are just some of the ACTUAL REASONS why nobody should reproduce. Humans, animals have sex because of genetic programming, they fornicate because they have a desire to do it, that desire is genetically programmed. People are hungry to have sex not hungry to have children, sex takes care of the children automatically. There is no genetic DEMAND that they have children. Are you against limiting someones reproduction rights? Why none answers the question? How many people should die in WW3, in a horrific, unimaginable death for you to say "No, this is too much, life is too stupid." I hope none will be upset if I won't answer, I'm getting headaches when writing essays and one-liners are just lame. |
one-more-timeJun 1, 2012 9:03 AM
| LUL |
one-more-time said: Lol, but why would you even need consent when the person in question does not exist? Non existent entities have no rights.Because the non-existent cannot be deprived of existence; because the price is an extraordinary amount of (human) suffering; because the only reason to reproduce is a selfish one; because it is an imposition without the individuals consent - those are just some of the ACTUAL REASONS why nobody should reproduce. And those aren't "ACTUAL REASONS" either, anyone can wing it the other way and say that life gives the person a great chance at happiness, et cetera. It's just an opinion either way. Why none answers the question? How many people should die in WW3, in a horrific, unimaginable death for you to say "No, this is too much, life is too stupid." No amount of suffering can ever possibly be enough of a reason to stop the continued existence of mankind. For every disaster we survive, we continue building our growing civilizations and become ever mightier upon the foundations laid by the blood of the perished, carrying on their dreams and hopes as we struggle on. Giving up would be to piss on the sacrifice made by our ancestors and desecrate everything that our culture and nature itself has built up. If we are to end in oblivion, then we damn well better go out fighting and hanging on with tooth and nail. This whole machine is oiled and kept running by blood and suffering, so work it to the max and cruise towards glory with full speed. insolus said: Say that to every lawmaker in the world.You can't enforce morality lol |
| @ OP I think law enforcement for morals, if it has to be applied to morality at all, should go on a case-by-case basis. No matter what side of the issue you're on, Murphy's Law will dictate that you eventually end up with too many exceptions to call them exceptions. |
 |
one-more-time said: Because the non-existent cannot be deprived of existence; because the price is an extraordinary amount of (human) suffering; because the only reason to reproduce is a selfish one; because it is an imposition without the individuals consent - those are just some of the ACTUAL REASONS why nobody should reproduce. 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. Another thing, saying that we have sex because of selfish reasons is not an argument against having sex. We do many things for selfish reasons - eat ice cream, ride a roller coaster, watch porn. It would be silly to suggest that therefore we should stop doing all those things. Humans, animals have sex because of genetic programming, they fornicate because they have a desire to do it, that desire is genetically programmed. People are hungry to have sex not hungry to have children, sex takes care of the children automatically. There is no genetic DEMAND that they have children. Yes there is - if genes of a particular species don't propagate, that species will go extinct. Genes are inherently selfish, they "want" to be passed on and survive through the offspring of the parent. At the genetic level, to say that there is no demand to reproduce, is antithetical to gene survival and is therefore false in that context. Because the only way genes propagate in humans is through reproduction, humans evolved to have sex and to find pleasure in it; if they find it pleasing, they are likely to repeat it, and are likely to pass on their genes. Baman said: insolus said: Say that to every lawmaker [and religious leader] in the world.You can't enforce morality lol FTFY |
| I don't want kids, but I am pretty damn glad I exist. I don't really care if other people want kids, and if someone regrets existing they can just kill themselves. I don't really understand why you want humans to be extinct but not other animals. Animals suffer from stress too. |
| The law should not be used to enforce morality, because then the question becomes "who's morality?" The majority's morality? I think not because then minorities would get the short end of the stick (LGBT people, people of other religious backgrounds, etc). Laws need to made to protect the maximum number of citizens of their country, including minorities. (Especially minorities) In the case of prostitution it would make more sense to legalize it because then more people would be protected. Prostitutes won't lose their money or be beat up by pimps, they'd be able to have good working conditions and hours too like any other job. Places with legal brothels provide contraception and protection and regular STI tests to ensure that the costumers and the prostitutes stay safe and healthy. Laws that are made to enforce morality never work because you can't stop human nature. It's better to keep things like contraception and abortion safe and legal then take it away and have mothers, daughters and sisters dying from botched back-alley abortions. And before anyone can refute me and say anti-abortion laws protect the fetus, I am going to say I'm arguing from a purely lawful standpoint and not a moral one about life. A fetus may be human life but until it's born it's not a citizen and I previously said laws need to protect the maximum number of citizens of it's country. So I'm prioritizing existing citizens over the potential ones. Laws that overlap morality and protection are okay though, because they are protecting. So laws against murder and theft are no-brainers because they are protecting people. If people start making laws to enforce their own moral code than I want to outlaw eating meat, lol. |
GH0STSMILES said: Still, it's inevitable that it enforce morality in one way or another, otherwise it would not work at all. And keeping in league with the moral opinion of the majority is first and foremost the most important thing, otherwise the legal system will not have democratic legitimacy, and again it would fall apart. The only reason going against the moral opinion of the majority in order to protect and provide benefit to a minority can be perceived as legitimate is if the idea of human rights is held as a core principle by both the people and the government.The law should not be used to enforce morality, because then the question becomes "who's morality?" The majority's morality? I think not because then minorities would get the short end of the stick (LGBT people, people of other religious backgrounds, etc). Laws need to made to protect the maximum number of citizens of their country, including minorities. (Especially minorities) The important part though is limiting any intervention on moral grounds strictly to cases that is deemed necessary for the optimal functioning of society. The less intervention, the better. So in a sense, the more morality enforcing laws outside of the absolutely necessary there is in any given judicial system, the less it cares about freedom and human rights, whether it's American states that refuse gay marriage or Sharia law systems that stone people for adultery. |
Baman said: I agree with most of what you said. Using the law to protect the maximum number of people is a form of morality in and of itself, but I think its a morality that uses logic and reasoning to try and find the best possible solution while still allowing autonomy as opposed to morality that comes from religion where their really isn't much logic going on.GH0STSMILES said: Still, it's inevitable that it enforce morality in one way or another, otherwise it would not work at all. And keeping in league with the moral opinion of the majority is first and foremost the most important thing, otherwise the legal system will not have democratic legitimacy, and again it would fall apart. The only reason going against the moral opinion of the majority in order to protect and provide benefit to a minority can be perceived as legitimate is if the idea of human rights is held as a core principle by both the people and the government.The law should not be used to enforce morality, because then the question becomes "who's morality?" The majority's morality? I think not because then minorities would get the short end of the stick (LGBT people, people of other religious backgrounds, etc). Laws need to made to protect the maximum number of citizens of their country, including minorities. (Especially minorities) The important part though is limiting any intervention on moral grounds strictly to cases that is deemed necessary for the optimal functioning of society. The less intervention, the better. So in a sense, the more morality enforcing laws outside of the absolutely necessary there is in any given judicial system, the less it cares about freedom and human rights, whether it's American states that refuse gay marriage or Sharia law systems that stone people for adultery. As for democracy and majority rule, well that sometimes gets in the way of autonomy, and I'm using autonomy specifically because it's not always a clear human rights issue. I'll use adoption as an example. I don't think anyone would argue that adoption is a human right, it is a privilege. My step-mother's friend had to adopt because she is incapable of getting pregnant and she and her husband had to jump through hoops of fire proving they would be capable parents before they finally were allowed to adopt a child. Now, if they were homosexual they might not even be allowed to adopt a child if they lived in certain areas of the world, and that is trampling on their autonomy. If qualified homosexual partners wanted to become parents, they should be allowed to become parents no matter what the majority thinks of it. They should be allowed to retain that freedom of choice, and I don't think you would disagree with this specifically (if I'm reading your post right....) What you said though was that for democracy to work governments need to listen to the majority, which for the most part, they do, but my argument is if the majority wants to limit the autonomy of the minority then the majority should, well, suck it up and deal. The whole purpose of electing government in the first place is so that they look out for our best interests. Our best interests don't lay in forcing our morality on others, so majority rule shouldn't count in any case that only results in limiting autonomy, as opposed to protecting it. |
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 |