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 - More Than Mortal
Pages: 1 ... 259260261 262263 ... 502
7801
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:49:11 AM »
Awkward.
I can see where you're coming from, but I think the thought experiment would be much more relevant if--instead of the deletion of life--its the deletion of the capacity to actualise potential persons; mass sterilisation.
7802
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:45:43 AM »
Then I'm sure he'd be all for that.
I don't think so since that would be its own form of imposition. It'd depend on how he perceived the balance of utility in that hypothetical.
7803
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:43:48 AM »
But why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?
Sorry, what? Since when was it possible to talk about actualities without potentials, since the latter necessarily precedes the former.
One proposition of anti-natalism, as least as far as I can tell, is that a potential person should hold more precedence than an actual person. That sounds rather preposterous to me.
No, since anti-natalism is seeking for the total elimination--as far as is logically possible--of potential persons. It's giving precedence to avoiding the initial imposition of disutility on a person, not saying potential persons have more value thab actual persons. It's precisely because actual persons have MORE value that we should reduce the number of potential persons.
7804
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:40:31 AM »
...what?
Is something about what I said confusing? Because I can't see it.
Your wording. I can't tell if you're saying it's impossible to be "a social darwinism" (again, the wording) or if you're insulting me for supposedly being a social darwinist, as you claimed.
Oh, I missed that error. It was a gibe about how you're initial comment has social darwinist undertones. I meant to say I don't think you're stupid enough to actually be a social darwinist.
7805
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:38:22 AM »
But wishing for no existence at all is obviously stupid and futile. Might as well just off yourself if that's what you want, rather than being an insufferable edgelord. Yeah, wow, that would accomplish a lot.
Just about as much as nonexistence, wouldn't you say?
Well, no, since not imposing life would completely avoid the potentiality for disutility--which is a pretty big accomplishment by any measure.
7806
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:33:12 AM »
...what?
Is something about what I said confusing? Because I can't see it.
7807
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:32:05 AM »
But why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?
Sorry, what? Since when was it possible to talk about actualities without potentials, since the latter necessarily precedes the former.
7808
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:29:30 AM »
Also, TIL: Nuka is a social darwinist.
Cool, another reason for my parents to hate me even more.
Well if you should hate somebody for anything it should probably be social darwinism. I'm sure, however, you're not actually stupid enough to be a social darwinism.
7809
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:26:34 AM »
potential
That right there. Why should we put a precedence on those who can exist but don't?
At least in my opinion, we should worry about the people who already exist before we worry about those who are yet to exist. What we already have is more important than what we can have.
Nothing you just said contradicts any part of our arguments.
If it doesn't, then what point are you trying to make?
The fact that the disutility is potential doesn't negate the negative moral value of procreation, since the imposition of life is the very thing which actualises the potential.
7810
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:25:00 AM »
Because there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it. For the fifth time, it's NOT.
There's nothing inherently wrong with suffering--that doesn't mean it HAS to happen. That doesn't mean it HAS to exist. Invariably, it is BETTER if there is NO suffering.
What's the point of nonexistence?
Conversely, what's the point of existence?
There isn't, until you give it purpose.
And giving something purpose is what everything's about.
The universe will continue to exist with life with it as much as we want or don't want it to. To appreciate it for its beauty and accomplishments is better than to sit around pouting about how you with everything was an empty void of nothingness.
So the point of existence is subjective?
Yes.
That would also include the possibility that any number of persons don't find a purpose in existence, right?
Just because they failed to find their purpose, that doesn't mean they didn't have the potential to find one for themselves.
Well, it kind of does, since determinism. Also, TIL: Nuka is a social darwinist.
7811
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:22:38 AM »
potential
That right there. Why should we put a precedence on those who can exist but don't?
At least in my opinion, we should worry about the people who already exist before we worry about those who are yet to exist. What we already have is more important than what we can have.
Nothing you just said contradicts any part of our arguments.
7812
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:20:23 AM »
Yes.
Wouldn't that imply a lack of objective morality?
Who said morality was a part of any of this?
How does subjective meaning NOT involve morality. Subjectivity comes from the nature of values, some of which are comments on how we ought to act and thus moral. Affording subjective validity to all values and thus meanings is patently ridiculous.
7813
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:15:16 AM »
Life isn't supposed to be fair. All the more reason not to impose life on others.
Or better yet, to put them up to the challenge to see how far they can go.
Even I find that a horribly capricious sentiment. "Might as well just see how they do!"
I don't see the issue. That's basically what scientists do with lab rats.
You did not just compare the imposition of life with efforts to remedy the disutility of such an imposition. . . Did you?
That I did. Is it really so shocking?
Considering the utility of the latter is only necessitated by the disutility of the former. . . Yes, it is.
7814
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:14:10 AM »
Yes.
Wouldn't that imply a lack of objective morality?
7815
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:12:38 AM »
What sense does it make for a species to force its own extinction because it cannot fulfill a logically impossible moral requirement? Perfect sense. I don't know what's so troubling about it, to be honest. You're going to have to tell me.
What part of "logically impossible" do you need me to clarify?
I'd like you to clarify why not having kids--if taken as a moral imperative--is at all logical impossible.
Drawing a triangle with four sides? THAT's logically impossible.
Verbatim's primary argument is that conception is wrong because the one being conceived cannot consent beforehand. But how does that which does not exist consent, or do anything at all for that matter?
The point is one of imposition not coercion. A foetus can't consent to its mother drinking heavily while pregnant, but that's no justification for the imposition of serious deficiencies onto the foetus.
But a fetus exists.
And so does the potential disutility which comes with the imposition of life. . .
7816
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:11:20 AM »
Life isn't supposed to be fair. All the more reason not to impose life on others.
Or better yet, to put them up to the challenge to see how far they can go.
Even I find that a horribly capricious sentiment. "Might as well just see how they do!"
I don't see the issue. That's basically what scientists do with lab rats.
You did not just compare the imposition of life with efforts to remedy the disutility of such an imposition. . . Did you?
7817
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:07:22 AM »
What sense does it make for a species to force its own extinction because it cannot fulfill a logically impossible moral requirement? Perfect sense. I don't know what's so troubling about it, to be honest. You're going to have to tell me.
What part of "logically impossible" do you need me to clarify?
I'd like you to clarify why not having kids--if taken as a moral imperative--is at all logical impossible.
Drawing a triangle with four sides? THAT's logically impossible.
Verbatim's primary argument is that conception is wrong because the one being conceived cannot consent beforehand. But how does that which does not exist consent, or do anything at all for that matter?
The point is one of imposition not coercion. A foetus can't consent to its mother drinking heavily while pregnant, but that's no justification for the imposition of serious deficiencies onto the foetus.
7818
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:04:53 AM »
Life isn't supposed to be fair. All the more reason not to impose life on others.
Or better yet, to put them up to the challenge to see how far they can go.
Even I find that a horribly capricious sentiment. "Might as well just see how they do!"
7819
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:03:36 AM »
What sense does it make for a species to force its own extinction because it cannot fulfill a logically impossible moral requirement? Perfect sense. I don't know what's so troubling about it, to be honest. You're going to have to tell me.
What part of "logically impossible" do you need me to clarify?
I'd like you to clarify why not having kids--if taken as a moral imperative--is at all logical impossible. Drawing a triangle with four sides? THAT's logically impossible.
7820
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:00:55 AM »
Wisdom and enlightenment comes from pain and suffering. I've grown from my struggles, and I'm glad I didn't give into the dark depths of my mind. I dealt with suicidal depression for about half of my lifespan.
Why do you keep restating something nobody even remotely disagrees with?
Because there's nothing inherently wrong with suffering, which seems to be the entire reason for wanting to eliminate it.
Verbatim didn't claim suffering--as the negative experiences of conscious creatures--is inherently bad. The badness being discussed is the general disutility being imposed upon people--or, if you like, the suffering minus the overcoming, taken as an aggregate.
7821
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:58:22 AM »
Nuka, stop trying to balance the utility and disutility of life. Perform a regression and step back; Verbatim is claiming that the INITIAL IMPOSITION of this need to find a balance between utility and disutiliy is immoral in itself, since no utility is lost in the face of a complete lack of disutility.
7822
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:54:58 AM »
Wisdom and enlightenment comes from pain and suffering. I've grown from my struggles, and I'm glad I didn't give into the dark depths of my mind. I dealt with suicidal depression for about half of my lifespan.
Why do you keep restating something nobody even remotely disagrees with?
7823
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:48:41 AM »
Answer my question please. I DID.
Meta actually understands what the fuck I'm saying, and he summed up my position quite well.
No, you didn't.
What's so horrible about suffering if it can be overcome?
He did, the utility of overcoming suffering is negated when the capacity for disutility is removed in the first place.
7824
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:47:16 AM »
This is not a healthy state of mind
Jesus Christ. The last instance I know of where a person accused somebody of being mentally ill for disagreeing with them involved a Stalinist. Not to mention, acknowledgement of the facts (be they moral or physical) doesn't necessitate any sort of emotional state. I hear it all the time from people who aren't determinists; "What's the point to anything? Doesn't it make you miserable?" No. It doesn't. Searching for truth is liberating in all of its forms, and I'm sure Verbatim agrees.
7825
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:41:02 AM »
Life is what you make of it.
Again, missing the point. Verbatim isn't saying its impossible for somebody to improve there life, he's saying an imposition of such a situation is immoral in the first instance. Like I said above, it's not about a balance of utility or disutility-it's about not imposing the need to find a balance in the first place.
7826
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:37:16 AM »
We learn and grow from pain and suffering, struggle and conflict
You're missing the entire point. Verb isn't saying that suffering can NEVER have some sort of utility, he's saying it needn't operate in a position of utility or disutility at all.
7827
« on: February 03, 2015, 08:17:41 AM »
For the record, I'm not an anti-natalist but I still don't plan on having children. C
Would you advocate that others have children?
I'm not going to actively promote or encourage pro-creation, no, but I'm not going to chastise people for having kids, either. I'd rather manage the fallout, so to speak. I do think, however, that the choice to have a child should be subject to massive moral, personal and financial considerations; large, somewhat poor working-class families make my blood boil. My own decision to not have children is born mostly from personal and moral considerations.
7828
« on: February 03, 2015, 08:07:20 AM »
For the record, I'm not an anti-natalist but I still don't plan on having children.
7829
« on: February 03, 2015, 08:03:52 AM »
Lmao. You guys lack any sense of humor. I'm out.
>said something blatantly ignorant >wasn't anything even remotely hinting it was meant to be humourous >gets called out >makes the ex-post claim it was a joke >all while in serious Good, leave.
7830
« on: February 03, 2015, 08:01:34 AM »
Though you do, of course, realize that it's that sort of defeatist mentality that "makes" it a waste of time
Sure, but that doesn't preclude me from making assertions about the 'best probable trajectory' of anti-natalism as a considered philosophy, let alone an actual practiced ethic, independent of my opinion on it. I'd much rather devote my energy to arguing for a secular, objective system of morality and generally improving the lot of humankind via cultural and intellectual enrichment. I'd rather engage with people and try to show them ways of loving their own life as much as they can, despite the presence of suffering. If that relegates me to a seat on the back-row in discussions of anti-natalism, then I'm willing to sit there.
Pages: 1 ... 259260261 262263 ... 502
|
Show Posts