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 - Elai
Pages: 1 ... 575576577 578579 ... 633
17281
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:31:58 PM »
Pizza Planet > All
17282
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:29:53 PM »
And how do you feel about abortions, if this scenario gives you pause? I'm an advocate for them, but again, it's not something I'd like to decide for myself. I'd rather never be in that position, because I'm not sure what I'd do, in-practice. Another scenario I have trouble with: what if the woman I loved wanted children? That was the only thing in the world she wanted, and she didn't want to adopt? What would I do? I'd want to give the world to my wife, but from a morality standpoint, I know it's wrong. I'd obviously try to explain my standpoint to her, but at the end of the day, I'm still denying the ONE THING she's wanted her entire life to the one person I love. I'm not a fan of abortions, either. They're messy and gruesome and horrible, and they often leave the mother in an intense state of shock and depression afterwards. Bad stuff. But it's one of those "you gotta do what you gotta do" situations. If you make the decision to have the abortion, you are tacitly admitting that you are unprepared to bring up a child--so you should commit to that decision. Like I said, they suck. But you put it best, you gotta do what you gotta do. Better to deny the child the chance to suffer than to selfishly have the child, only to spare yourself of that depression. If you come to that realization when the kid is already walking and talking, well, you waited too long. It's too late now. Try for adoption, perhaps. Wait - I'm confused. Are you saying that if you have children, and then realise too late that having children is wrong, you should put them up for adoption? I'd rather children never be even conceived in the first place. I take no joy out of the notion of killing newborns, and I feel like I have to stress that point.
Same. When I try to explain anti-natalism to my friends, they all think I'm so sociopathic murderer, whereas in reality, I'm the exact opposite.
17283
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:17:30 PM »
I mean parasite in the sense that all we do is drain resources without really doing anything to give back. Parasites are just takers. All of us are parasites in this sense--but some are bigger parasites than others. For example, able-bodied fellows who refuse to work.
Being an advocate for veganism/anti-natalism is part of what I'd consider an attempt to making the world a better place, yes. And there's numerous other things you can do as well, but it's mostly just about helping others in any way you can. Acknowledge that everything you do is the result of another human being's suffering (to your house, to your job, down the clothes you wear). Account for it, and take whatever action you feel is necessary to counteract it. We're not going to succeed in preventing all the suffering in the world, but we can certainly try our hardest.
Again, well said. Nothing further to discuss, here.
17284
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:06:57 PM »
Because you would be imposing death on another human being. Well, Benatar's book is entitled Better Never to Have Been for a reason.
This isn't a scenario where you pick the best option--you pick the least worst option.
I'd say imposing death for the purposes of curtailing a potentially miserable life is completely justified.
True, but where do we draw the line? I mean, I'd obviously like to believe that if I had the option to just press a button and all life would end, I would press it. But I couldn't imagine what I would actually do in that scenario. It's an entirely different thing to just NOT have kids. But killing the ones you have... might prove too much for me, personally. That's why I consider it a difficult question.
17285
« on: June 22, 2015, 03:01:40 PM »
Meta summed it up rather well. If you're able to make value deductions like "I don't have the right to impose this on anybody else", then you're not a nihilist. It's a contradiction. If you think your own existence is pointless or insignificant, but you see the potential that others have, that's not nihilism--that's just being realistic. But of course, even as a "personal nihilist", you should still do your part in trying to make the world a better place. Otherwise, you're just kind of a parasite.
Well said. But... Hypothetically, what would "doing your part to try and make the world a better place" entail? If by "parasite" you mean someone who is actively trying to be unemployed* (or something along the lines of that), couldn't that person still theoretically make the world a better place by not having children and not supporting the meat and dairy industries? *(I'm assuming that's what you meant by "parasite".)
17286
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:54:16 PM »
Why wouldn't it be? (Actually curious)
Because you would be imposing death on another human being.
Is that worse than the alternatives? Is non-existence worse than a lifetime of suffering?
It's not the "non-existence" part that makes the question difficult to answer. You won't find a single anti-natalist that believes non-existence to be worst than the alternative. The entire philosophy is based around the idea that NOT suffering (IE., non-existence) is superior to suffering (IE., existence.) The difficult part of the question is that you are imposing death on someone who might not necessarily want it - thus creating suffering. Yes, yes, I know. It's a child. But there's a reason AN's don't just run around killing people. Imposing death on someone who doesn't want it is almost as bad imposing life on someone. Should we play someone else's hand in a gamble of whether or not they find life worth the suffering it will most definitely include?
Again, it's a difficult question to answer. I'm not even sure what I would do.
17287
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:33:14 PM »
Although, I'm not quite sure why Meta doesn't just PM Verb if the question is for him...
forum
ˈfɔːrəm/Submit
noun
1.
a meeting or medium where ideas and views on a particular issue can be exchanged.
Spoiler Also, I like to air my dirty laundry.
I know what "forum" means, but if you want Verbatim's response primarily, why not just PM him?
17288
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:30:41 PM »
Why wouldn't it be? (Actually curious)
Because you would be imposing death on another human being.
17289
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:28:44 PM »
Domino's is the best. Although sometimes their crust irritates the inside of my mouth.
17290
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:27:37 PM »
I can answer that for him because he's not qualified to:
Fuck NO, given that anti-natalism is morally reprehensible in the first place.
Considering the question was specifically directed at Verbatim, he's the only one really qualified to answer. Although, I'm not quite sure why Meta doesn't just PM Verb if the question is for him...
17291
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:21:38 PM »
If y'all could stop quoting me, that'd be great.
unfortunately quoting is one of those things that becomes easier the more you do it
WOAH
TY
WAS THAT A METAL GEAR REFERENCE I READ
 don't be too impressed
Still, it's one thing to look up Metal Gear quotes. It's another thing entirely to apply them. The success of the reference depends on how well you use your quote.
17292
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:09:24 PM »
If y'all could stop quoting me, that'd be great.
unfortunately quoting is one of those things that becomes easier the more you do it
WOAH TY WAS THAT A METAL GEAR REFERENCE I READ
17293
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:08:35 PM »
I do care, yes. Mostly because I respect a lot of the people here, and because the internet is just the logical extension of society if you subtract all the social patronising that happens IRL. So what happens is that the people you meet online are usually their true selves, whereas in person, there are so many more factors taken into consideration.
this is completely off-topic but, i never realized your avatar was a gif until now and it just scared me a little bit when the eyes blinked >.>
That's what I'm going for. You're not the first person to be caught off-guard like that.
17294
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:05:11 PM »
If y'all could stop quoting me, that'd be great.
If y'all could stop quoting me, that'd be great.
If y'all could stop quoting me, that'd be great.
If y'all could stop quoting me, that'd be great.
If y'all could stop quoting me, that'd be great.
If y'all could stop quoting me, that'd be great.
Lemon pls
17295
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:04:31 PM »
I do care, yes. Mostly because I respect a lot of the people here, and because the internet is just the logical extension of society if you subtract all the social patronising that happens IRL. So what happens is that the people you meet online are usually their true selves, whereas in person, there are so many more factors taken into consideration.
17296
« on: June 22, 2015, 02:01:52 PM »
If y'all could stop quoting me, that'd be great.
17297
« on: June 22, 2015, 01:14:25 PM »
Nostalgia Critic is so god-damned annoying.
17298
« on: June 22, 2015, 12:32:36 PM »
These are the kinds of questions that keep me up at night.
17299
« on: June 22, 2015, 12:23:05 PM »
So is "Do or do not - there is no try."
Fucking prequels.
17300
« on: June 22, 2015, 12:21:05 PM »
one could be both an anti-natalist and a nihilist, no?
I can't say I agree with Verbatim's more colourful conclusions in the OP, but this would still be a contradiction in terminus. Being an anti-natalist requires the attribution of objective disutility to life.
Right... that's what I figured. I suppose the problem with my line of thinking was that I thought nihilism required some sort of action on the person's part (in the same way being an anti-natalist requires the action of not having children/preventing suffering). I was only thinking in a very specific case (my case). I don't care about the consequences of my actions unless they affect others in a negative way. I don't believe there is a point to anything, yet I identify with the anti-natalist/Vegan crowd. But this isn't really nihilism. Not that I ever considered myself a nihilist.
17301
« on: June 22, 2015, 11:53:56 AM »
Nobody's imposing anything on anybody. Everybody tries to avoid pain for their loved ones. But people still regularly have children, as if it's some "good thing" to. As if that's "the dream" (you know how it is. Get married->have kids->have grandkids). To be fair, though, people rarely have kids with negative intentions in mind. I just don't think people have thought what bringing a child into the world really means (IE. they don't understand the consequences fully.) All of us dying won't fix the issue.
Actually, it would fix this issue. If no one is there to experience pain, then the anti-natalist dream has been realised.
17302
« on: June 22, 2015, 11:49:39 AM »
Would it not be possible for you to consider one to be a decent human being AND a Nihilist but only in regards to oneself? For example, what if someone established that there is no point to theirs or other's lives but still maintained not to impose this on other people? Coming to the conclusion of "there is no point to anything, but my viewpoint does not give me the right to impose it on others by making their lives worse."
In this sense, one could be both an anti-natalist and a nihilist, no? I suppose this would really be true nihilism, but humour me. I'm interested in hearing what you have to say.
17303
« on: June 22, 2015, 10:48:25 AM »
I prefer manual. I just feel like I have no control over my vehicle's performance in an automatic.
I'm looking at a shitty 96 Ford Ranger manual for the winter. My current car won't last very long in the Canadian cold, and with the icey roads, I need more control.
my current car is a death trap on ice or snow which is part of the reason I'm opting for a Subaru since I can get one with all wheel drive
Ah, gotcha. Well, I'm a bit different because I absolutely love my current car, it's just not the best option for driving in the winter due to it's age and make.
what do you drive now?
86 Corvette. She's in prime condition because my dad rarely drove it, and he absolutely never drove it in the winter. I plan on continuing that tradition now that it's mine. I think there's something like 120k on it.
cool
there's one sitting in a backyard near my grandma's house.
Fix that shit up boiii Sickest ride.
17304
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:54:02 PM »
I can't get enough of this song or band.
17305
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:50:42 PM »
I meant the rear wheel drive would be bad for those Canadian winters. RWD is actually better for winters, if I'm being honest. 4WD is always the best choice, though. There was like a 20 year period that I hated everything Chevy made, Ford, too. I hate everything after the '78 Mustang until 2005 where they introduced their latest model base. until the new vettes came out and I love them. I like 'em, too. The only thing I criticize is the unoriginality of the backlights. They're ripped right off the Camaro, whereas Corvettes have traditionally always had the circular brake lights.  I've always like old ones though and I love the cars from the 70-80's. Like I said earlier I almost ended up with an 79 Camaro but I couldn't justify it. '67 Camaro>All other Camaro's. But any Camaro is a sick car because it delivers everything you want in American muscle+you have room for your friends. My car only seats two (legally. Normally I just stuff James in the trunk.) And dude the car seems to totally fit your personality
It does. It's a good thing retro shit is in fashion right now. I'm somewhat of a hot commodity in the straight-female department, lol. I don't expect it to last long, though.
17306
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:37:37 PM »
oh shit that's badass. I love old corvettes and the brand new ones. Although that rear wheel drive must be a bitch. 86 is a good year especially the sting ray vette
Yeah, I love old Corvettes, too. Normally, I'm more of a Mustang guy, but my dad gave me a good deal on his 'Vette (I only payed 9k, it's priced at about 14k), and considering he just bought the new 2015 Corvette Stingray, he was willing to part ways with his baby. The RWD is sick, though. The donuts I can do in that thing... Ugh, the best. What I like about the '86 is that it's kind of an obscure year. You don't see many people driving them (at least, around these parts.) The most popular Corvette's I see are '73, '94, 2005, 2009, and 2014. The best part though is that I have this whole "'80's" vibe going on. I have the long hair, aviators, jean jacket and 70's/80's musical interest. I actually have a milk crate in the trunk filled with my CD collection. Nothing better than cruising down the freeway listening to Duran Duran or King Crimson.
17307
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:31:41 PM »
It was a joke. Oh... Sorry, the last couple days, I haven't gotten enough sleep to function properly. I managed to put myself into a field once, and a yard later this winter 'cause I think I've got a weel cylinder starting to leak, which throws my braking all off... and if this pull to the right wasn't bad enough on it's own... I basically can't stop on snow if I don't want to lock the fronts until I fix this.
Well, fuck. Luckily I don't have the problem, though. My car we exceptionally well kept by my dad before I bought it off him. The only thing I've had to fix is the weather strip in the back and I have a small transmission leak.
17308
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:23:07 PM »
I prefer manual. I just feel like I have no control over my vehicle's performance in an automatic.
I'm looking at a shitty 96 Ford Ranger manual for the winter. My current car won't last very long in the Canadian cold, and with the icey roads, I need more control.
my current car is a death trap on ice or snow which is part of the reason I'm opting for a Subaru since I can get one with all wheel drive
Ah, gotcha. Well, I'm a bit different because I absolutely love my current car, it's just not the best option for driving in the winter due to it's age and make.
Bruh, snowbanks are half the joys of owning an old car.
How do you mean?
17309
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:16:28 PM »
I prefer manual. I just feel like I have no control over my vehicle's performance in an automatic.
I'm looking at a shitty 96 Ford Ranger manual for the winter. My current car won't last very long in the Canadian cold, and with the icey roads, I need more control.
my current car is a death trap on ice or snow which is part of the reason I'm opting for a Subaru since I can get one with all wheel drive
Ah, gotcha. Well, I'm a bit different because I absolutely love my current car, it's just not the best option for driving in the winter due to it's age and make.
what do you drive now?
86 Corvette. She's in prime condition because my dad rarely drove it, and he absolutely never drove it in the winter. I plan on continuing that tradition now that it's mine. I think there's something like 120k on it.
17310
« on: June 21, 2015, 10:12:37 PM »
I prefer manual. I just feel like I have no control over my vehicle's performance in an automatic.
I'm looking at a shitty 96 Ford Ranger manual for the winter. My current car won't last very long in the Canadian cold, and with the icey roads, I need more control.
my current car is a death trap on ice or snow which is part of the reason I'm opting for a Subaru since I can get one with all wheel drive
Ah, gotcha. Well, I'm a bit different because I absolutely love my current car, it's just not the best option for driving in the winter due to it's age and make.
Pages: 1 ... 575576577 578579 ... 633
|
Show Posts