This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Tsirist
Pages: 1 ... 8910 1112 ... 17
271
« on: October 25, 2015, 09:37:44 PM »
can't argue with someone who doesn't understand the concepts of "statistically significant" and comparative inequalities
you win challenger, gg
272
« on: October 25, 2015, 09:30:39 PM »
No shit. Did you even read my post regarding the studies I linked a page or two back? The fact that they kill themselves afterwards does NOT necessarily suggest that there is a better solution. Transgenderism is proven to help, but as you point out it is not a PERFECT solution. It's not even a good solution judging from the statistics.
You have yet to address this issue. I addressed it before you even posted. In the OP. This is the whole point of this thread.
Get your eyes checked then get back to me.
"And your argument shouldn't just be "because it makes people happy". That isn't what we're discussing. We're discussing the viewpoint that people are pushing, saying transgenderism should be here to stay." As I have stated, without referring to the individuals' levels of happiness: gender dysphoria causes high rates of suicide. This is what I assume you mean by the serious harm that the problem causes. Transgenderism reduces the rate of suicide and is the best method of treatment that we are aware of. This solves the problem of suicide to a significant degree. Where in that did I mention making these people happy? Do I know for certain that it will always be the best solution? Of course not. That would be impossible. But we have no idea what a better solution would be right now so transgenderism is our best option, and for that reason it should be socially acceptable if we want to stop the harm caused by suicides. Does this not conform to your restrictions on the nature of the debate? What are your allowable measures of success and failure for transgenderism as a solution to the problem of gender dysphoria?
273
« on: October 25, 2015, 09:22:34 PM »
They're not all happy, however. They're killing themselves even after surgery and having support. Why? Because they have a mental illness. No shit. Did you even read my post regarding the studies I linked a page or two back? The fact that they kill themselves afterwards does NOT necessarily suggest that there is a better solution. Transgenderism is proven to help, but as you point out it is not a PERFECT solution. You have yet to address this issue.
274
« on: October 25, 2015, 09:01:05 PM »
I don't understand the issue. Clearly gender dysphoria is a harmful disorder to those who experience it and those who rely on them to be able to function normally. But transgenderism helps to solve it for the individual and doesn't hurt anyone else. What's the big deal?
275
« on: October 25, 2015, 08:51:15 PM »
I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. We need to heavily research into this and come up with something better than "well they commit suicide a little less with this treatment". That's pathetic.
Why doesn't it cut it? And who is stopping you from pursuing research on it? And why shouldn't we use the most effective means we know of right now and socially embrace it for the sake of those who need it?
276
« on: October 25, 2015, 08:44:08 PM »
that doesnt make any sense. how do you not accept mental illnesses? they exist. they're real.
I mean I don't accept them to be incurable diseases we need to work around.
Gender dysphoria is a mental illness. This is a fact. And just like all the other mental illnesses that plague our species, we need to eradicate them from existence.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the statistics and studies I posted on the last page.
277
« on: October 25, 2015, 08:43:28 PM »
People who accept transgenderism, yeah. I don't "accept" mental illnesses, I'm afraid.
that doesnt make any sense. how do you not accept mental illnesses? they exist. they're real.
He means he doesn't think it should be accepted as a normal thing, or something that we should consider "okay".
that's because mental illnesses aren't "okay" and need to be treated.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Gender dysphoria isn't about some sort of decision that someone sits down and makes one day about themselves.
go read/watch any interview with a tranny. they always ask when they realized they were a tranny. decisions were made.
Do you think people with PTSD and depression sat down one day and decided to be victims of those disorders? No, what you're referring to is their realization of the problem and the need to pursue the solution. They did not choose to be gender dysphoric, otherwise they clearly wouldn't have any problems.
278
« on: October 25, 2015, 08:21:32 PM »
People who accept transgenderism, yeah. I don't "accept" mental illnesses, I'm afraid.
that doesnt make any sense. how do you not accept mental illnesses? they exist. they're real.
He means he doesn't think it should be accepted as a normal thing, or something that we should consider "okay".
that's because mental illnesses aren't "okay" and need to be treated.
I think you're looking at this the wrong way. Gender dysphoria isn't about some sort of decision that someone sits down and makes one day about themselves. If it were a decision it wouldn't need to be treated. Being gender dysphoric stems from some biological phenomenon and clearly demands treatment because of its tendency to cause depression and other disorders when not addressed. Thing is, the way you treat gender dysphoria is with transgenderism. If you read my post above you'll see that statistics have proven this treatment to be effective. Transgenderism, in other words, is not the problem, but the solution.
279
« on: October 25, 2015, 08:03:17 PM »
from here3.3. Percentages of transsexuals with symptoms of anxiety and depression according to the hormonal treatment Overall, 61% of the group of patients without treatment and 33% of the group with hormonal treatment experienced possible symptoms (score 8—10) or symptoms (score >11) of anxiety (Table 3). The same pattern was found for symptoms of depression;the percentages were significantly higher in the group of patients without treatment (31%) than in the group on hormonal treatment (8%). You might be confused by the fact that transsexuals remain at high risk for suicide after transitioning, but the question is whether or not they would have been at a high risk anyway if they hadn't transitioned, because the transgender tendency might relate to a mental health difference that non-transgender populations do not exhibit. See: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885"For the purpose of evaluating the safety of sex reassignment in terms of morbidity and mortality, however, it is reasonable to compare sex reassigned persons with matched population controls. The caveat with this design is that transsexual persons before sex reassignment might differ from healthy controls (although this bias can be statistically corrected for by adjusting for baseline differences). It is therefore important to note that the current study is only informative with respect to transsexuals persons health after sex reassignment; no inferences can be drawn as to the effectiveness of sex reassignment as a treatment for transsexualism. In other words, the results should not be interpreted such as sex reassignment per se increases morbidity and mortality. Things might have been even worse without sex reassignment. As an analogy, similar studies have found increased somatic morbidity, suicide rate, and overall mortality for patients treated for bipolar disorder and schizophrenia.[39], [40] This is important information, but it does not follow that mood stabilizing treatment or antipsychotic treatment is the culprit."
280
« on: October 24, 2015, 02:17:06 PM »
So would any of the ANs here be amenable to a one-child policy rather than complete restraint from children universally all at once? With the given that it is feasible to enforce, somehow. Curious about your thoughts on that less-dramatic (imo) approach.
Like China? Yeah. If all future couples just had one kid, it wouldn't be enough to sustain the human race. We could have a voucher system for that, I think.
Adoption is, of course, still an option for anyone who wants kids.
Oh it would sustain it, but the population would be smaller and more controlled, solving many overpopulation problems.
Negative. Anything less than two children produced per parent causes population decline.
281
« on: October 24, 2015, 02:09:29 PM »
So would any of the ANs here be amenable to a one-child policy rather than complete restraint from children universally all at once? With the given that it is feasible to enforce, somehow. Curious about your thoughts on that less-dramatic (imo) approach.
282
« on: October 24, 2015, 01:38:20 PM »
How, exactly? Describe this major suffering that would be incurred as a result of no longer having kids.
That is the most ridiculously idealistic thing I've ever heard.
I'm sorry--no amount of happiness could ever justify the holocaust.
You couldn't even justify a hangnail on a treesloth.
So what, are you some kind of transhumanist?
If you're suggesting that I commit suicide, that's not exactly a great option for myriad reasons. Primarily because I wouldn't make a very good advocate for what I believe in if I'm dead.
Well, for one thing, the happiness derived from having children would be taken away. The motivation to work towards a better world would disappear. Society would collapse; the end days would be upon us and nothing would matter anymore. The universal inability to have children would have dire consequences. You want a holocaust? You've got it. Nothing can justify the holocaust; doesn't mean we should be unable to move past it. Yes, transhumanism strikes a chord with me. I'm fine with you continuing to be an advocate. I might suggest you commit suicide if you were to make a serious plan to force people to not have children, but I get the feeling that isn't your intent.
283
« on: October 24, 2015, 01:23:41 PM »
So are you antinatalist too then? I'm making a list and checking it twice!
Yeah. Though I think Verb and I are the only ones here who identify as such.
eggsalad. We debate it all the time; neither of us budges much though, heh. Guess it's just one of those topics
284
« on: October 24, 2015, 01:11:16 PM »
So are you antinatalist too then? I'm making a list and checking it twice!
285
« on: October 24, 2015, 01:04:58 PM »
What strikes me as odd about the public perception of anti-natalism is that they treat it as some edgy, hipster, new age bullshit that started in the dark bowels of the internet.
When in reality, people have been cursing fate since the very start of critical thought. Ever read Ecclesiastes? Best part of the Bible.
tbf, rationalities that work against it have existed since before the bible, but i'm not sure what the oldest instance of antinatalist thought is and imo it's kinda edgy, and i feel free to make that judgement of it 
286
« on: October 24, 2015, 01:03:27 PM »
Why preserve something with no end game? Well, again, because we got here/evolved to this point naturally, without any sort of will, but are here now and sufficiently advanced to contemplate it. But going back to nothing means putting an end to what we have, and that would cause major suffering for those that do exist now.
My personal value lies in the notion that we can create something that generates far more happiness than there has ever been suffering in human history thus far. Part of that process is engineering the suffering out of us, and in the meantime I'm perfectly happy to work towards that, so I will.
One hell of a leap? I feel like your notion that my life and nobody else's lives are worthwhile is one huge fucking leap. I'm here to have fucking fun, and so far I've enjoyed it. That is the grand purpose. You can think it's pointless and stupid and see yourself out if you like. In the meantime, I suggest you consider your own advice and stop projecting.
If you hate us so much, again, you are not obligated to count yourself among us. I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm not sure I'm one who can help you.
287
« on: October 24, 2015, 12:50:56 PM »
Nah, I don't think there's a set number of people dying that is perfect. I don't think life is about some sort of outcome or end-game, as you put it, so the specific numbers are irrelevant so long as we do our best to preserve the process. I'm not saying holocausts or wars are wrong. imo they add a specific flavor to life, but from an ethical standpoint i can't argue for them. in the end, as long as people are living happily, and as long as we maximize the proportion who are living happily against those who aren't . . . that is ethical, i think.
and i think society fulfills that ethic, which is why i personally view society as useful.
"You can't expect to have an unbiased perspective from someone evaluating their own life. . . . You have to measure people's quality of life in a more objective way." I don't see how this fits in with your belief that no decision concerning other people should be made for them. Should not they be the ones to determine if the world is suitable for them? I thought we couldn't make assumptions about that, or are you with me now? Such an observation that they are biased towards their own lives suggests to me that we can in fact make the assumption that life is, on average, worth living to those who live it.
288
« on: October 24, 2015, 12:35:45 PM »
How bad does life have to get for you to say, "Okay, life sucks, let's stop having kids."
How many more wars do we have to go through? How many more holocausts?
Nuclear holocaust.
That would probably be the point of no return for me as well.
Yup. Luckily it hasn't happened yet, our world leaders haven't reached that point of stupidity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasili_Arkhipov
289
« on: October 24, 2015, 12:29:40 PM »
Well, I'll talk about it, but again--if you're gonna discuss this sort of thing with me, you have to be prepared to take a little bit of heat. Especially if I think you say something really dumb. Getting offended by what I say is fine, and it's something that I need to work on in terms of being a more agreeable person, but let's cut this idea that I'm not allowed to get angry when someone supports something I consider evil. All right?
Haha, you'd be hard-pressed to offend me. Make no mistake, I'm arguing exactly like you are, and I do all the time. I'll call you out on whatever shit I can, probably, and that was just one thing I saw sticking out that I could grab onto. Mine was not formal debate either; I just like to look like an asshole. So go for it.
290
« on: October 24, 2015, 12:24:00 PM »
well i mean i see no god but i'm feeling pretty alright so that's one person
i'm in a relationship with someone who sees no god but must be feeling alright because's she's still alive so that's two
i don't see your point here
You're "pretty alright".
That's a far cry from "perfectly happy".
the extent of my happiness is mine to know, yet it should be clear to you that it is sufficient that i have not opted for zero just yet
291
« on: October 24, 2015, 12:22:05 PM »
Essentially, Verb's idea of ethical growth of a species is absolutely impossible, as suffering in life is inevitable, ergo all forms of sentient life that can experience suffering should not exist nor should they ever thus eliminating the 'ethics' of the situation entirely (no sentience = no ethics) which I find to be a peculiar conundrum.
Basically. You know, I appreciate it when someone shows they understand my position enough that they can write up a little synopsis of it.
Sometimes I just get tired of explaining the same shit.
I argue with one of your fellow antinatalists all the time; I've heard all of this before. Maybe I don't understand your position, and perhaps you do not understand mine . . . if you tire of dialogue, you are welcome to cease in your participation.
292
« on: October 24, 2015, 12:20:48 PM »
So you expect us to go from nothing to perfection in no time at all? No, I don't "expect" that at all. I'm telling you that it would be the only way to make the imposition of life permissible in any way. Life has to be perfect--if life isn't perfect, then what right do you have to impose it on anybody?
You realize that for an intelligent being to consider this, that intelligent being must first exist right? You realize that I've been an ant-natalist for almost four years, and by now, I probably would have encountered this shit argument, right?
The fact that the person doesn't exist yet is exactly why we don't have the right to create them. We can't assume that they'd be okay with existing.
imo "happiness > nothing" is self-evident
That would work if life was pure happiness. But it isn't.
life is perfect, verb. at least, it is in my eyes. i can't think of a more worthwhile story to be put in, but i tend to view stories on an equal playing field, each having their own values, etc. so i'm here to see what this story is and to enjoy the process of doing so, and the smell of the trees as i walk to class and the wind whispering through the brutalist architecture at school gives me that simple pleasure of living that most people in the world can see. if i were in a warzone, i'm not sure how i would feel, but hedonic treadmills etc. along with the apparent fact that people there want to fight and live there as well suggests to me that this life is worth living And wow, sorry, didn't realize you had such impressive credentials. Yet you use such a poor, unrelated counterargument: that beings must first be consulted before anything concerning them is done. Yet society operates on assumptions about what other people want all the time. Society wouldn't exist otherwise, and we might not have been raised with sufficient intelligence to discuss this question if it hadn't made some assumptions along the way. And again, life is clearly not "pure happiness" (depending on how you look at it), but most people have more happiness than suffering.
293
« on: October 24, 2015, 12:03:16 PM »
[edit:] this was not the preview button, mb
294
« on: October 24, 2015, 12:00:16 PM »
Bad grammar
Anecdotal evidence
Probably has bad hygiene
0/10
You called me a thesaurus yesterday! And I know you don't mean that as a serious post but you just have to look around you to see how atheists can be happy. Sorry, but that struck me as a truly absurd claim. Religion is weird and it's traumatizing for a lot of people to have it taken away from them, and Verb would probably assert that that doesn't undo the stupidity he referred to, but being an atheist doesn't imply you're unhappy.
295
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:57:45 AM »
idk who taught you to debate but i don't think you're gonna win any hearts or minds by insulting people This isn't a formal debate. I see no use in treating philosophies that I consider evil with any amount of respect whatsoever if we're in a public, informal setting.
so you're just here to bang on the wall and vent your frustrations against the majority who disagree with you? i actually can understand that. it's fun, and i know it.
296
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:56:15 AM »
We all endure pain, Verb, yet most of us are happy. How does pain preclude happiness in that sense at all?
Because people are stupid. Most human beings haven't figured out that there's no God yet, for one. They think that when they die, they're gonna go to heaven, so whatever adversity they endure in their lives won't matter.
Take that away from them--what do they think of life now?
well i mean i see no god but i'm feeling pretty alright so that's one person i'm in a relationship with someone who sees no god but must be feeling alright because's she's still alive so that's two i don't see your point here
297
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:55:04 AM »
How about we keep reproducing then? How about no, because that's evil and stupid?
Our world continues to improve. It's not improving fast enough. The world needs to be perfect yesterday. That is the only acceptable rate of improvement. We may one day reach that 100% chance and that perfect life, whatever that means for you. It means no suffering or pain, ever. No discomfort. No negative sensation.
This is called "not having been born at all," and it's very achievable.
If we stop having kids.
oh mb, let me change my mind then, didn't realize it was evil and stupid; nobody has ever said so to me otherwise So you expect us to go from nothing to perfection in no time at all? You realize that for an intelligent being to consider this, that intelligent being must first exist right? At that point it's already too late, from your perspective, but then we would be inflicting massive harm by stopping. imo "happiness > nothing" is self-evident
298
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:47:42 AM »
It nearly precludes it? So in other words, it doesn't? Are you retarded?
"Nearly precludes"--meaning, there is an extremely low chance of a life that contains no pain or suffering.
In other words, the only acceptable way to live.
The intelligence remark wasn't necessary, thanks. You're unintelligent.
idk who taught you to debate but i don't think you're gonna win any hearts or minds by insulting people I understand what precludes means; however, the presence of pain does not somehow eliminate all the happiness from your life. We all endure pain, Verb, yet most of us are happy. How does pain preclude happiness in that sense at all?
299
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:45:47 AM »
The potential for great suffering nearly precludes the potential for great happiness. Everyone who considers themselves intelligent knows this. Life is too much of a gamble to allow anyone to experience it. It's the opposite of selfish.
What about a child born into a wealthy and caring family, a child that is very much likely to have a great life? Surely a high chance of a good life is better then no life at all.
No life at all is always better.
A "high chance" of a good life isn't good enough. It has to be a 100% chance of a perfect life for there to be no moral quandaries.
How about we keep reproducing then? Our world continues to improve. We may one day reach that 100% chance and that perfect life, whatever that means for you. After that, continued reproduction will have ensured more lives have been lived in pleasure than ever were lived with any sort of pain.
300
« on: October 24, 2015, 11:42:51 AM »
The potential for great suffering nearly precludes the potential for great happiness. Everyone who considers themselves intelligent knows this. Life is too much of a gamble to allow anyone to experience it. It's the opposite of selfish.
But it is, though.
Some things are more selfish than others.
It nearly precludes it? So in other words, it doesn't? And the expected outcome is indeed happiness? The intelligence remark wasn't necessary, thanks. And again, life is a gamble to some degree, but the parents have a great ability to influence that gamble. Their intentions matter a great deal for this reason, but to say that it is "too much of a gamble" is up to you, I guess. I dunno, I think either you see way too much suffering around you/grossly overestimate the amount of suffering compared to happiness in the world, or you are a highly fearful/careful person. I wonder if that's the reason for your perspective on the odds. Not that those odds aren't improving anyways, thanks to those who have had children before us. "But it is, though" ain't gonna cut it. Explain. Are you just agreeing with me that it is egotistical in the sense that literally everything is? I can agree that some things are more selfish, but that wasn't our purpose here originally. If you want to talk about it in this light, you should illustrate, then, what "too selfish" might be.
Pages: 1 ... 8910 1112 ... 17
|
Show Posts