I have the next two volumes of Transmetropolitan coming in the mail now.

sorry guys I went out to dinner but I'm back now

Drifting back towards books and religion, Metro 2033 got a good few points on religion oddly enough. Not in any in-depth-analysis shit, but enough to satisfy given the whole scenario that the book portrays.

It has to be recognized as an imposition by the subject. Unless you can provide some examples showing otherwise...?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by that... an imposition is an imposition, regardless of whether the person acknowledges it or not.

I am finding it difficult to come up with an example where the person is imposed, unbeknownst, though.

The pain experienced at death is distinct from death itself, though.

I know, that's why I italicised "dying". But since one cannot happen without the other, I think it's unreasonable to assume that "death" isn't an imposition because the subject doesn't know it. The subject will know they're dying, but because they will soon not exist and therefore have no opinion, it somehow makes it okay?

It's a dangerous line of thought, that followed to it's logical conclusion, could be used as justification for genocide. I don't think you're genocidal, but ...

I worded that poorly. Not acknowledged, necessarily -- just that the imposition negatively affects them in some way.

But again, impositions don't have to negatively affect someone to be impositions. As long as things happen to people without their consent, I would consider it an imposition.

Unless you're arguing that the cessation of experience is itself negative, which doesn't bode well with your efilist views.

Definitely not arguing that.

I'm saying that if you want to defend a categorical proposition, you need to refer to some empirical ends. So, "killing is unethical" because if everyone went around killing each other we'd have some serious problems. It could never be a moral absolute, though, in the sense that "suffering is intrinsically bad" is an absolute.

Okay, let me see if I'm understanding you correctly.

You're simply stating that the assertion "imposing death is wrong" is not always apt, right? That killing could, in some instances, be justified? Whereas the assertion that "imposing suffering is wrong" is correct all of the time. Because I agree with that 100%.

But again, impositions don't have to negatively affect someone to be impositions. As long as things happen to people without their consent, I would consider it an imposition.

I don't see how that would be a moral issue, though. I really do need an example for this =/

You're simply stating that the assertion "imposing death is wrong" is not always apt, right? That killing could, in some instances, be justified? Whereas the assertion that "imposing suffering is wrong" all of the time. Because I agree with that 100%.

Right, killing cannot be an absolute because there are scenarios where it would be justified. Still don't agree with the idea of "imposing death" though.

"Imposing suffering is wrong" isn't an absolute either, though, because there are scenarios where doing so would be instrumental to goods (the sting of a vaccination). The intrinsic value of experience is the only absolute. So when I say that "pain is intrinsically bad", it still depends on an individual's subjectivity; "stabbing is bad" could never be an absolute because some people might enjoy being stabbed. But, for all intents and purposes, when we talk about pain we are talking about experiences that we find unpleasant, however they may be manifested. "Pain" and "pleasure" are the two best universals we have.

Quote from: Pendulate on July 25, 2015, 06:23:03 PM

Quote from: Prehisnake on July 25, 2015, 06:08:43 PM

But again, impositions don't have to negatively affect someone to be impositions. As long as things happen to people without their consent, I would consider it an imposition.

I don't see how that would be a moral issue, though. I really do need an example for this =/

I steal your money and gamble it all away, with the intent of making you a millionaire. It just so happens that I win. I give you all my winnings, and make it clear that I had no idea that I was actually gonna win.

this is an imposition, despite it having a positive outcome
i had no right to do that, but are you gonna complain?...

Well, no, I wouldn't call that an imposition. And I wouldn't call stealing money from someone who is none the wiser is an imposition either.

You can easily make an argument for why it's unethical, just not on the basis of how it impacts the subject. It's the same with killing.

Someone lives a perfect life, totally free of pain and suffering.

Still an imposition.
Because you didn't ask for it. Simple.

Quote from: Pendulate on July 25, 2015, 06:45:39 PM

Well, no, I wouldn't call that an imposition. And I wouldn't call stealing money from someone who is none the wiser is an imposition either.

Who said you wouldn't be the wiser? You would be the wiser.

Sorry, you weren't clear on whether I was aware of my money being stolen before you gave me my winnings.

Obviously, what's being imposed upon you is poverty (albeit temporary). I don't think I should need to spell that out.

Well, sure. I don't know what your point is; the imposition negatively impacts me, if only temporarily. Whether I'm willing to forget that when you give me my money is irrelevant.

I'm expecting some games to come in next week

n.n

Because it's under that logic that you might be able to argue that I shouldn't be an anti-natalist, because there's a lot of people who live very comfortable lives--including myself. Life is only an imposition to those who deem it an imposition, and as many have pointed out to me, most people--even those living in penurious conditions--would rather have been born than not at all.

To elaborate further on that lottery scenario, let's say I attempt to do the same thing for another user. Except this time, I lose all their money. And another user. Lose. A hundred other users. I lose every time.

So, for them, it was an imposition--I took all their money, and now they are broke.
But for you, it wasn't an imposition, because I actually managed to pull the right card, or scratch the right ticket.

That doesn't just... sound wrong to you?

Life is only an imposition to those who deem it an imposition

No, no, that's not what I mean at all. I'm saying that for something to be an imposition there needs to be a subject imposed upon; negatively affected in some sense. For example, say you're on a diet, and I sneak into your house in the middle of the night and inject extra calories into your food. You eat it, gain weight, and become depressed. You have no knowledge of why you're gaining weight, but it's fair to say that my deviousness is an imposition for you, right?

Or say I drew an offensive picture on your forehead while you were asleep. People throughout the day point and laugh at you and make you feel really insecure. In this scenario, you're not even aware of any change in your appearance or surroundings; yet my actions have, again, been an imposition for you.

Does that make sense?

Of course suffering in life isn't merely a risk; it's an inevitability. Assuming a pain-free life was guaranteed, though, I don't think you could call it an imposition. Do you?

Absolutely. Does pain-free mean no boredom, or discomfort? There's a lot of negative sensation that we feel that I wouldn't classify as pain or suffering.

You think stealing from someone is an imposition even if they never realize they've been stolen from? I'm having a hard time understanding what you mean by "imposition", because as far as I'm familiar with the term it requires someone to be imposed upon... and that can't happen without them being affected in some way.

Something done to somebody without their consent--that's an imposition. That's everything from rape to surprise birthday parties. The latter could be described as a "white imposition" (after "white lie", or a lie with good intentions), which is the very thing I've been trying to delineate here, I guess.

And yes, even if I don't realize that I've been stolen from, it's still an imposition. You say I have to be "affected" in some way--what do you mean? Emotionally? That wouldn't seem logical. Physically? Well, money was physically taken from my wallet, and now I have less spending power. So whether I know it or not, I've been negatively affected by that.

No, no, that's not what I mean at all. I'm saying that for something to be an imposition there needs to be a subject imposed upon; negatively affected in some sense. For example, say you're on a diet, and I sneak into your house in the middle of the night and inject extra calories into your food. You eat it, gain weight, and become depressed. You have no knowledge of why you're gaining weight, but it's fair to say that my deviousness is an imposition for you, right?

Or say I drew an offensive picture on your forehead while you were asleep. People throughout the day point and laugh at you and make you feel really insecure. In this scenario, you're not even aware of any change in your appearance or surroundings; yet my actions have, again, been an imposition for you.

Does that make sense?

Yeah, now you're speaking my language.

Well, look at that. You did have something to offer the thread, Pendulate.

Quote from: SuperIrish on July 25, 2015, 10:32:56 AM

Drifting back towards books and religion, Metro 2033 got a good few points on religion oddly enough. Not in any in-depth-analysis shit, but enough to satisfy given the whole scenario that the book portrays.

yeah man. I actually did a big paper on the Christian symbolism that one can find in Glukovsky's world in my last year of school.

Given that Russia is largely athiest, I thought Artyom's and the supporting characters' thoughts on religion was just a cover to let the author get away with such criticisms without punishment from the orthodox (christians/catholics?) there. I swear I heard somewhere they are linked to Putin somehow, and we all know how lenient he is to opposition...

Then again, this could be my cyncism talking here.