Isn't it "immoral" to condemn someone to have people live until they die out, one by one when they had the ability to keep life going? Isn't it "immoral" for that last person to be left to die alone when the first had everyone surrounding them in their final moments?
You don't think that the last person, as they get caught in a trap that they could've been freed from, a disease they could've been cured from, etc, as they suffered from a death they didn't have to die from...they didn't deserve to have that aid from others?
Is it really moral to forbid a a couple- a potential mother- from having a child that they so dearly want just because of your twisted idea of what morality is? That they should just grow old and without their kids to one day take care of them when they're too old to take care of themselves? That they'll never be able to see their beloved kids have grandchildren?
And I'm talking from necessity.
the one true God is Doctor Doom and we should all be worshiping him.
We were talking hypotheticals, as in post-apocalyptic or a starting country.
You know, the whole purpose for living in the first place.
But to want to throw away everything mankind has worked towards? Lol fucking retarded.
When will he realize that pain is a good thing. You're not going to accomplish anything worthwhile in life without the sacrifice of enduring stress and suffering.
Don't lie, if there was an actual bill for that he'd be all for it.
Also he did say that he'd push the red button.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 12:29:00 PMI find it funny that you accuse me of lying and then claim to be able to authoritatively speak for Verbatim.Okay, you know that I didn't mean it like that >__>
I find it funny that you accuse me of lying and then claim to be able to authoritatively speak for Verbatim.
A better question is why you're so afraid of suffering.
Quote from: Naoto on February 03, 2015, 12:44:33 PMA better question is why you're so afraid of suffering.For what must be the eight time, it's a question of disutility (suffering - engendered benefits).
Again so what? If death out weighs life for you
Suffering is how the individual grows. It is how the species grows. This agrument essentially boils down to 'life isn't fair'.
Quote from: Naoto on February 03, 2015, 01:00:14 PMAgain so what? If death out weighs life for youAgain, not even what he's arguing.QuoteSuffering is how the individual grows. It is how the species grows. This agrument essentially boils down to 'life isn't fair'.I just said we aren't solely talking about suffering. Verbatim isn't denying the potential usefulness of suffering.
But then to make the jump to say no one else should have kids?
Quote from: Naoto on February 03, 2015, 01:14:00 PMBut then to make the jump to say no one else should have kids? It stands to reason that if you aren't going to have kids because it represents a moral transgression then--assuming this moral transgression is indeed true--it stands to reason that others shouldn't have kids.
It does not stand to reason.
A. Your outlook, morals, and situation are not the same as everyone else's.
2. If the species/universe will eventually die off anyways trying to kill it off early is ultimately pointless.
C. It will never happen.