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 - Anonymous (User Deleted)
Pages: 1 ... 135136137 138139 ... 212
4081
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:59:12 PM »
Who the shit is Ivan?
4082
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:54:34 PM »
How would someone even practice antinatalism?
By not having children and convincing others of the immorality of having children. The problem, according to antinatalism, is that the imposition of life--or the actualisation of potential persons--necessarily imposes disutility on a person, which is unwarranted.
I have no plans of ever having children for as long as I live. Does that automatically make me an antinatalist?
4083
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:43:49 PM »
You've gone incoherent.
4084
« on: February 03, 2015, 03:41:31 PM »
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.
Okay, I'm clearly not understanding this antinatalism idea proposed here. How would someone even practice antinatalism? And how would it work on a large scale (ie, is it even practical)?
4085
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:47:55 AM »
...I think I'll have to think about this for a while before I reply again. That's what you should do, always.
Oh hush 
4086
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:45:25 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.
...I think I'll have to think about this for a while before I reply again.
4087
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:43:55 AM »
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. I've never said anything remotely similar to that.
It's not explicitly stated, but is that not a logical result of antinatalist arguments? EDIT: See also my reply to Meta. I have to take some time to think about this >.>
4088
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:38:58 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.
4089
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:32:19 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.
Now adoption is something I can support.
4090
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AM »
1) Creating life creates suffering
2) Limit suffering from those who exist
So... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent? 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.
But why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?
4091
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:24:00 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?
4092
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:21:50 AM »
what the heck are you posting because i'm lost here
4093
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:19:13 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.
4094
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:12:04 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.
4095
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:08:30 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.
4096
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:07:52 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.
4097
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:05:14 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?
4098
« on: February 03, 2015, 10:03:33 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?
4099
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:59:53 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?
4100
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:52:46 AM »
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-nature https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/the-fallacy-fallacy
Fallacy fallacy fallacy.
He's treating nature as if its a god that must be obeyed. Nature is not a god that must be obeyed. If nature had its way, there would no one like me to oppose it. You moron.
You post that every single time I point out that someone is making a fallacious argument. I'm going to start reporting you now.
Fine, whatever. What sense does it make for a species to force its own extinction because it cannot fulfill a logically impossible moral requirement?
4101
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:19:41 AM »
4102
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:17:15 AM »
4103
« on: February 03, 2015, 09:14:52 AM »
4104
« on: February 03, 2015, 08:26:56 AM »
Maybe tonight on 360, ya'll mothafuckas need Sgt. Johnson
Oh yay I'm not the only one with Johnson
YES!
4105
« on: February 03, 2015, 07:55:25 AM »
Maybe tonight on 360, ya'll mothafuckas need Sgt. Johnson
4106
« on: February 03, 2015, 07:52:08 AM »
I think the Arbiter would take this one easily.
Arbiter vs. Shepard would be quit a bit more balanced.
4107
« on: February 03, 2015, 07:18:09 AM »
4108
« on: February 03, 2015, 07:07:13 AM »
4109
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:52:48 PM »
but stop oppressing her tho
using religious phrases might trigger her
4110
« on: February 02, 2015, 09:50:53 PM »
Nicolas Cage went on to steal the Declaration of Independence and Ed Harris became some douche who doesn't like Nicolas Cage.  BTW where the heck is National Treasure 3?
Pages: 1 ... 135136137 138139 ... 212
|
Show Posts
