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 - ๐ Aria ๐ฎ
Pages: 1 ... 313314315 316317 ... 352
9421
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:37:03 AM »
1) Creating life creates suffering
2) Limit suffering from those who exist
So... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?
Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)
Which is always a plus, yes. Adoption is a fantastic thing, be it for children or pets.
Better to give those without homes a home, after all.
And that's what's being said here. Verb's not saying to kill all the babies, he's saying to not bring new life into suffering. If you want to be a parent still, adopt so that a being that's already been born- that's already tainted by the suffering- can life live with less of it.
9422
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:35:20 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.The id is your natural impulses, no? Procreation is one of those. If we're going off of Freud's model (I wasn't, initially), the ego is what seeks to sate the id.
The ego mediates the superego and id. Anti-natalism would promote that the superego take precedence over the id on the subject of procreation.
9423
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:31:29 AM »
1) Creating life creates suffering
2) Limit suffering from those who exist
So... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?
Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)
9424
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:30:25 AM »
That's not ego. It's EXACTLY ego.
"I want to be a father. I want to extend my bloodline."
Ego.
It'd be id, actually. No, uh, yeah, it's ego. I know what I'm talking about. Been at this for two years.
The id is your natural impulses, no? Procreation is one of those.
9425
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:28:30 AM »
They WANT the human race to continue for... some stupid, petty, worthless reason. Based on their ego.
That's not ego.
It'd be id, actually.
9426
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:27:07 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.
One point for anti-natalism is that if life wasn't imposed upon that individual, he or she wouldn't have had to suffer through that lack of purpose. It's cutting off suffering before it can happen.
I'm playing devil's advocate here by the way. I do agree with Verb that there is no purpose, but I prefer the chaos of life and development to a lack of it. That doesn't mean that existence or chaos is an objective right or good, just that it's there.
If you prefer life's chaos, then why wish for an end to all existence? There is no middle ground.
I think you missed the part where I said that I'm playing devil's advocate here since I understand the argument.
9427
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 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?
1) Creating life creates suffering 2) Limit suffering from those who exist
9428
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:23:14 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.
One point for anti-natalism is that if life wasn't imposed upon that individual, he or she wouldn't have had to suffer through that lack of purpose. It's cutting off suffering before it can happen. I'm playing devil's advocate here by the way. I do agree with Verb that there is no purpose, but I prefer the chaos of life and development to a lack of it. That doesn't mean that existence or chaos is an objective right or good, just that it's there.
9429
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:17:53 AM »
Yes.
Wouldn't that imply a lack of objective morality?
Who said morality was a part of any of this?
Morality is integral to the argument for anti-natalism.
9430
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:15:34 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?
9431
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:14:15 AM »
You are completely nonsensical and should probably visit a shrink.
Nuka it's fine if you want to disagree and debate with Verbatim about this, but drop this type of shit when you do it. There is no reason you have to be so insulting when making a point, especially in this forum.
Also, stop lashing back so much, Verbatim. Like I said, this isn't the forum for it.
Can we not have anymore reason to flood reports from this thread? Heysoose cristo.
Did you even read the other posts? Verbatim started it with:
"life is what you make of it, durr"
. . .
OF COURSE THAT'S THE FUCKING GOAL. How the fuck could you NOT know that?
He did tell Verb to stop lashing back as well.
As if they're both equally in the wrong here.
Murder and theft are both crimes, that doesn't mean a judge implies equivalence by sentencing both to prison.
We're not talking about murder or theft, we're talking about written insults.
It's a metaphor my dear. Severity has nothing to do with it; regardless of who insulted who first or worst, they both were shitslinging where it's prohibited. He told them both to calm down, this should be a non-issue.
9432
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:09:50 AM »
You are completely nonsensical and should probably visit a shrink.
Nuka it's fine if you want to disagree and debate with Verbatim about this, but drop this type of shit when you do it. There is no reason you have to be so insulting when making a point, especially in this forum.
Also, stop lashing back so much, Verbatim. Like I said, this isn't the forum for it.
Can we not have anymore reason to flood reports from this thread? Heysoose cristo.
Did you even read the other posts? Verbatim started it with:
"life is what you make of it, durr"
. . .
OF COURSE THAT'S THE FUCKING GOAL. How the fuck could you NOT know that?
He did tell Verb to stop lashing back as well.
As if they're both equally in the wrong here.
Murder and theft are both crimes, that doesn't mean a judge implies equivalence by sentencing both to prison.
9433
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:08:08 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?
9434
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:05:19 AM »
You are completely nonsensical and should probably visit a shrink.
Nuka it's fine if you want to disagree and debate with Verbatim about this, but drop this type of shit when you do it. There is no reason you have to be so insulting when making a point, especially in this forum.
Also, stop lashing back so much, Verbatim. Like I said, this isn't the forum for it.
Can we not have anymore reason to flood reports from this thread? Heysoose cristo.
Did you even read the other posts? Verbatim started it with:
"life is what you make of it, durr"
. . .
OF COURSE THAT'S THE FUCKING GOAL. How the fuck could you NOT know that?
He did tell Verb to stop lashing back as well.
9435
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:02:32 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?
9436
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:59:57 AM »
Moral of the story: adopt so that you don't have to make another suffer, and so that you can limit the suffering for an existing life.
9437
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:52:29 PM »
It's not like there's really an alternative phrase.
Why do we need a phrase at all? The theocratic establishment already dictates enough of our customs, so why are we compelled to perform the Christian equivalent of a Hitler salute every time someone merely sneezes?
That's what the government wants you to think.
9438
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:46:34 PM »
It's not like there's really an alternative phrase.
9439
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:40:22 PM »
Those are men who feel a need to compensate. 
>Invaded Russia >Was surprised that Slavs would stoop to scorching their own villages to starve the French Guy was charismatic, but he made a few dense moves out of arrogance and impatience.
9440
« on: February 02, 2015, 06:12:42 PM »
I think you meant "Sony dumps SOE".
9441
« on: February 02, 2015, 03:08:30 PM »
He likes girls and penises, obviously.
9442
« on: February 02, 2015, 03:06:30 PM »
Whatever the kill count, we can agree that a lot of snipers are some of the most moral people on the planet.
Removing the Islamist scourge, one by one.
Doesn't get more admirable than that.
They're too slow though. Now artillerymen... those are some guys with a sense of purpose and moral urgency.
Those are men who feel a need to compensate.
9443
« on: February 02, 2015, 03:05:31 PM »
>Playing Brick Throwing Simulator: Maximum Overjew Edition
>There's only 50 to 80 bricks in the entire game.
sorry, >Playing Echo Location Simulator: Rapidly Flicking Light Switch Sound Edition Doesn't sound as catchy.
9444
« on: February 02, 2015, 02:34:46 PM »
Kekking like a cuck kyke.
9445
« on: February 02, 2015, 02:30:14 PM »
>Playing Brick Throwing Simulator: Maximum Overjew Edition
9446
« on: February 02, 2015, 02:19:28 PM »
Western snipers definitely have a moral supremacy over insurgent snipers, but we should keep in mind that it's not much of an accomplishment. We should still strive to continue bettering ourselves, not just saying "at least we aren't as bad as them." No excuses, we don't need more "Chris Kyle"s and we should reevaluate psychological standards and care to reflect that instead of burying it under propaganda.
9447
« on: February 02, 2015, 02:09:17 PM »
Perpetually.
9448
« on: February 02, 2015, 10:03:23 AM »
With 5 being average, I'd place Dying Light at a 6/10. It didn't really do anything amazingly or really innovate much, but it's a solid game that has improvements over comparable games (e.g. Dead Island). It has a decent length as well, so overall I'd say it's just above average.
9449
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:59:09 AM »
The findings contradict a recent study
This is why I'm skeptical of so many "reports", "studies" etc.
They aren't as dependable as people believe. They should all be taken with a grain of salt, because a new finding can shatter it.
As for the rest of the article mentioning "time paradoxes"...........they lost me.
Theories are just a "best fit" for a series of evidences. New findings can solidify or disprove theories, an example being the atom. In this case, new findings and questioning of the numerous assumptions previously made ended with the 500,000 year theory being declared false.
9450
« on: February 01, 2015, 08:41:50 AM »
Sorry, I only care about the true American past-time. And hockey.
Competitive speed lynching?
I've gotten my best down to 15 seconds.
Pages: 1 ... 313314315 316317 ... 352
|
Show Posts