That didn't change anything, your situation is fundamentally different because depression is characteristically different than being dead. The alternatives to your preferred actions here are therefor characteristically different too, a depressed person suffers, while a dead person does not.

It seems like you either ignored, or completely misread my post. Depression isn't the focus of that hypothetical, it's the resulting consequences. You're responding to the wrong aspect.

And please don't repeat again that the inability to experience happiness is somehow a negative experience in itself.

Where did I say that?

Daily reminder Cortana will be revived somehow.

We don't cook too many unconventional foods, honestly.

Careful what you say here winy

Why?

I'm gonna gloss over the physical defects point though, mostly because that is something I'd rather not get worked up over at 1am. I'll just say this, don't lump physical and mental handicaps in together for christ's sake.

I'm talking extreme cases.

It's been my helmet since Halo 3

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 06:46:39 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 05:17:29 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 04:05:53 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 02:48:03 PM

My lack of support for their existence (That makes me sound like a monster, but that's how I'm gonna phrase it) is almost entirely the result of the impact that these people have on others, and the loss of quality of life to those who have to take care of them for their entire lives. I'm fully aware that the mentally retarded can live happily, but their primary caretakers, usually their families, were forced into that position of literal servitude without consent. It's a disservice to them.

Hmm, it's not an unreasonable stance to hold but not one that I share.

They are indeed a burden, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a detriment. The saying goes to judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners and animals (I think) well that should also extend to the infirm and the mentally handicapped. By carrying the burden and helping them to enjoy life despite the expense and pain it might cost to do so to me is a better reflection of the good aspects of humanity than almost anything else on the planet.

So whether or not it is correct to prevent some sort of inconvenience, or downright loss of living quality, is determined by it's capacity to reflect the good nature of humanity? How far are you willing to go with this philosophy; where do you draw the line between a burden rightfully endured because it shows the good nature of man, versus a burden that we should not have to deal with to begin with?

I believe that it is wrong to present this inconvenience to the afflicted people from the start simply because forcing them to do so is more "Humanitarian." If the circumstance under question can be accurately predicted and, therefore, stopped, then we should do it.

It might have come across like that, but I didn't quite intend it to read like that if it did <.<
Carrying a burden for the sake of doing so isn't really all that special, it's just remarking upon the capacity of humans to look after one of their own even if that one is on paper a detriment to society (in a non-harmful way like an arsonist or serial killer would be obviously)

I cut out the rest of your argument because it isn't quite what I want to be talking about. Hypothetically, I would be in favor of a method of detection that allows for an understanding of the mental health of an unborn child. No such system yet exists (It likely will in the coming century). But in a world where such a scanning system did exist, I would leave it up to the parents to determine if they wished to birth the child. And there would be, to me, zero shame in saying "No, I can't bear this burden, let's abort it."

Yes, looking after our less-abled members of society is a nice gesture and a nod to our capacity to help, but as I said before, that hypothetical honor isn't outweighed by its price. A lifetime of care-taking, so many losses for opportunity, and the suffering enduring by the family members, primarily the parents, is wrong to me. There exist those who willingly work in careers that involve overseeing their care, but I would prefer that they not exist to begin with to prevent that system from needing to exist at all.

I'm not saying we should go ahead and euthanize the disabled. I'm saying that in the future, when we have the capabilities to predict these mental or physical defects more accurately, we should exercise the right to choose freely and without moral scrutiny.

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 04:05:53 PM

Quote from: Mr Psychologist on September 26, 2015, 02:48:03 PM

My lack of support for their existence (That makes me sound like a monster, but that's how I'm gonna phrase it) is almost entirely the result of the impact that these people have on others, and the loss of quality of life to those who have to take care of them for their entire lives. I'm fully aware that the mentally retarded can live happily, but their primary caretakers, usually their families, were forced into that position of literal servitude without consent. It's a disservice to them.

Hmm, it's not an unreasonable stance to hold but not one that I share.

They are indeed a burden, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are a detriment. The saying goes to judge a society by how it treats it's prisoners and animals (I think) well that should also extend to the infirm and the mentally handicapped. By carrying the burden and helping them to enjoy life despite the expense and pain it might cost to do so to me is a better reflection of the good aspects of humanity than almost anything else on the planet.

So whether or not it is correct to prevent some sort of inconvenience, or downright loss of living quality, is determined by it's capacity to reflect the good nature of humanity? How far are you willing to go with this philosophy; where do you draw the line between a burden rightfully endured because it shows the good nature of man, versus a burden that we should not have to deal with to begin with?

I believe that it is wrong to present this inconvenience to the afflicted people from the start simply because forcing them to do so is more "Humanitarian." If the circumstance under question can be accurately predicted and, therefore, stopped, then we should do it.

My lack of support for their existence (That makes me sound like a monster, but that's how I'm gonna phrase it) is almost entirely the result of the impact that these people have on others, and the loss of quality of life to those who have to take care of them for their entire lives. I'm fully aware that the mentally retarded can live happily, but their primary caretakers, usually their families, were forced into that position of literal servitude without consent. It's a disservice to them.

the truly morally superior mentality

Oh, get off your imaginary high-horse. If the expected outcome did not reflect the probability that was established beforehand, then what else do you expect someone who supported that outcome to say? Mathematically, the positive outcome outweighed the negative, and in this case, by a substantial margin. There is literally nothing you can do afterwards if the negative outcome manages to come forth. And I can apply this principle to literally anything where you have to wager the most minuscule degree of uncertainty. And believe me, you do it.

I'm just dumbfounded that this is even a discussion. I never really expected to have to explain to somebody why offering the very high probability of an excellent quality of life to a dog is morally superior to killing them and providing no sensation of joy at all. The alternative outcome is so negligible that I view it being brought up in this discussion as extremely odd. Yeah, I get it, it's anti-Natalist stuff, but I fundamentally disagree with that philosophy, and that's clearly where Egg's position is grounded in. I'm not about to take this discussion to a completely different direction.

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 12:08:20 PM

Turkey already beat the argument to death, but in this specific instance, I view it as very obvious that the proper course of action, given the type of dog, and the circumstances, would have been to give the puppies to a shelter. Always take the moral high road, what this owner tried to do was lazy and unethical.

The "moral high road" would have been to dedicate his life to making sure these pups had the best lives they're going to have and raising them himself without concern for cost or time. Who knows who the fuck is going to get the dog if it goes to the shelter, maybe the dog will find no owner, maybe the dog will wind up in an abusive family?

But wait, that's unreasonable to expect of someone, not everyone is or should be obligated to do everything in their power to do the absolute most ethical thing possible.

The alternative you just poised is also very unlikely. I could very easily say "Yes, but x could happen" in reference to any situation in which morals are coming into question, but that's grossly overthinking the issue. And it really didn't disprove that the choice he made wasn't the correct one. No sane person would think, "Hm, if I give these animals to a shelter, they might get abused. Better shoot them to spare the pain!"

Quote from: Winy on September 26, 2015, 11:32:43 AM

Quote from: eggsalad on September 23, 2015, 01:47:34 PM

I'm not really advocating it, there just isn't much wrong with it.

Yes there is.

nuh uh

Turkey already beat the argument to death, but in this specific instance, I view it as very obvious that the proper course of action, given the type of dog, and the circumstances, would have been to give the puppies to a shelter. Always take the moral high road, what this owner tried to do was lazy and unethical.

Good god, that is fucking horrible.

Quote from: Winy on September 25, 2015, 10:08:46 PM

Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on September 25, 2015, 10:07:30 PM

Quote from: Winy on September 25, 2015, 10:05:27 PM

Quote from: DAS r00d d00d B00T on September 25, 2015, 02:26:56 PM

Fuck no.
He's not a real person.

I disagree.

clone rights activists pls go and stay go

You're just jealous of your clone's genetics.

>being jealous of a manufactured human who exists to grow organs for me

Clones are people, too.