Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim. OP/ED

Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13396
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim. OP/ED

Why the god/God concept is broken as a claim, OP ED.

To those who have rightfully left behind the idea of a disembodied super hero in the clouds, this is for the people who still insist the case must be.

There are multiple levels in which, what is merely in reality our projection of our own desires, in which the people who insist such is the case, that do not logically follow. Scientifically is a no brainer for those who have left all sorts of sky daddy claims who have accepted the reality that this is all there is.

BUT for those who still insist there must be some divine "creator" "inventor" or "cause" who has unlimited power, I have yet to see any credible argument, even outside science and merely on a moral level. Outside the lack of evidence, this is albatross that looms large for any human arguing the divine anywhere around the world in every country.

No one likes to be held back by force. Everyone strives to gain resources and questioning how things work is how we better understand the resources we use, it even tells us long term, how to cooperate with each other or dominate a hurdle in our way. Our delusions often get us stuck in our wishful thinking and predilections and if one looks at human history, no matter one's label today, they can look back at the ancient past to something they don't buy personally and say "I cant believe they bought that".

Now, the common concept of a god is that it is the apex, nothing is higher and it is the final "ref" if you are watering him down, or the final "law maker" whom you cant remove from office. In evolution in every species, there is a drive to be on top. Being on top means more resources, and more opportunity to reproduce. That is science however. I want to deal with the simply moral bankruptcy of any god claim.

"I am being oppressed" is the cry from the Muslim, the Jew and the Christian. It is even a battle between Indians in Cashmere. It is the battle between Buddhists in Tibet vs the Buddhists of the communist party in China.

Why do humans cling to a belief that puts them as the subordinate? For the same reason your mom and dad cant do anything wrong, even if they do lots of things wrong in reality. It is why we side to that we are sold and that which brings us comfort, even if what is sold to us is false. God/god belief works, not because invisible friends are real, but humans like the idea of being protected, like we evolved having our parents protect us.

 

OUTSIDE THAT THOUGH, the worst part of god claims is the moral aspect. Once you set up your god as the apex, it cannot fall. In reality all life falls and all humans die. What makes the god/God concept broken isn't just about the lack of scientific evidence. It is the idea that someone else determines our fate and good or bad, we have no say, and this entity, give it any name you want, owes us no explanation. In reality in the civil west that type of thinking does not fly. Our current election in America has both parties questioning and blaspheming both Romney and Obama. I am quite sure neither wants the other to gain absolute power, and I agree.

So how does one mentally square an unmovable apex power with the way we want to live in reality? How does one worship a a God you cant debate with or impeach or remove from office if it fucks up? If a God cannot make mistakes, then the title "all powerful" is a broken concept. But even beyond that immoral considering the fans of such claims say he is our "all powerful" protector.

Yet there has never been one period in human evolution that has not had violence or war or death, not to mention everyone dies. It seems like tons of drama a dictator wants to merely bring attention to themselves. It does not seem like a compassionate plan. When a child gets murdered, they are with God. If a child gets saved God was watching. But children worldwide die by the millions every year by disease, famine, war and crime. It seems a bit inept or malicious.

Skeptics know the real reason bad things happen, this is not a question for them. This is for anyone who claims Jesus, or Allah or Yahweh or even "Karma".

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: No one can

cj wrote:
 

No one can prevent imposing some risk on others.

So all risk imposition is ok then? Since I risk hitting my cat in the face when I open the door, it's ok for me to risk injuring people by shooting a mortar into the mall, is this your brilliant argument?

Quote:
I don't see why it is being an asshole for me to want to live and want to see my grandson grow up and make his own life.

The argument's about procreation, not your continued existence. 

cj wrote:
We are back to choices.  Shit may happen, but your reponse to the shit is your choice.

This is ludicrous, I have no choise in what sensations my brain ultimately blasts my conciousness with and you know it.

Quote:
Let's see, according to this article, she has a relationship with one of her body guards.  No financial worries.  She is rebuilding her relationship with her mother.  She is seeing the therapist less and less.  Her children are working on being normal siblings.  She has her driver's license.  She has her own home.  None of this makes up for her life in the cellar.  But she is making choices to live and be as happy as she is able.  Her choice.  Not yours.  Not mine.  Hers.

So you'd create another similar victim if you had the choise just because their life after the dungeon might be decent, is that your point? 

Quote:
I have/had responsibility for being the best parent I could be.  No one is a perfect parent, but that doesn't mean we are all terrible awful.

I'd say imposing the pointless risk of grotesque suffering on your kid merely because of your selfish desire to have a child kinda automatically makes you a shitty parent.

Quote:
It just means we have to work at being a good parent.  And for your information, two of them do have genetic conditions that should make their lives miserable --- but it doesn't seem to be so.

Well I'm glad they got lucky when you played russian roulette with their welfare but that hardly means everyone else does.

Quote:
Our lives are what we make of them

Yeah, and the only reason I have to "make something" of my life is because two motherfuckers decided they have the right to impose this shit on me for their selfish asshole reasons. 

Quote:
Mangeri wrote:
How about you scroll up and respond to one of the arguments?
 

I would respond if there was something to respond to that made any sense.  Harleysportster's posts make a little more sense than you do, but there still isn't anything I would call an argument.  Just some whining about how awful it all is.  That isn't an argument.

Fuck you, weasel, is all this spineless, evasive bullshit deserves in response.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:So now where do we

cj wrote:

So now where do we go?  Um, a virus that attacks mammals? and birds? and reptiles? and fish? and insects? that would kill them ALLLLLLLLLllllllllllll...........

You think humans can't come up with ways to kill stuff if we really try (that's kinda the one thing we're good at)? Even if we couldn't completely sterilize the planet we can at least do some serious damage.

Quote:
So very, very naive.  Yes, that would stop those animals already at the slaughterhouse from being turned into chops and steaks.  And prices would go up.  Which would encourage the ranchers to increase breeding so as to have more animals to send to the rebuilt slaughterhouses so as to make a big profit

Yes, and rebreeding the animal populations to their previous levels would take time, during which there exists less animals than there would have in the alternative scenario as in less suffering so it's still a win, and I don't see how assholes making profit has anything to do with the ethical question.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote: It is a very bad,

cj wrote:

 

It is a very bad, very over used sci-fi plot.  Ray Bradbury - There will come soft rains or The City or The Visitor, perhaps.  You know, one of the post-apocalyptic books.  I read Harlan Ellison - A Boy and His Dog and Andre Norton - Star Man's Son and Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle - The Mote in God's Eye and a bunch more when I was younger.

I know, I know, you just report, you don't make the news.

 

I've read Harlan Ellison's : "Boy and his Dog" and Bradbury's stories that you mention. (Not a huge Bradbury fan, but a HUGE Harlan Ellison fan). Hadn't heard of Andre Norton or Jerry Pournelle. I may have to look that up.

GAWD my reading list is getting backed up more and more.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

 

"Logically" the only problem I have with your ethical system is why you don't kill yourself. If avoidence of suffering is the paramount concern in your morality, and if you are certain to experience suffering if you continue living, and if non-existence precludes the ability to suffer, your only ethically sound path is suicide in a way that causes less suffering than the remaining suffering you'll experience if you live out your lifespan.

 

If you *do* put value on happiness (or whatever metric balances out against suffering) then the question is what's the equation? Once we have that equation we can figure out whether the average human/critter life born into a specific circumstance is morally defensible or not. We could also figure out if your ethical energy would be better spent focusing on pushing AN philosophy, or eliminating suffering, or encouraging the counterweight to suffering.

That argument got brought up ALOT on the AN YouTube vids.

(Again, I don't make the news, I'm just reporting it)  Smiling

But alot of  people asked "If life is so horrible, why don't all of you AN's kill yourselves?"

The replies were : "If you told one Jewish person in a concentration camp to kill themselves, would that solve the problem ? "

To which another expounded by stating : "If you told one Jewish person that killing themselves would simultaneously kill Adolf Hitler and eliminate the Third Reich and the camps, then it would be worth it"

From what I gather, the crux of the AN posters were stating that if killing themselves could actually accomplish something (i.e. blow my brains out and humanity ends, or blow my brains out and the suffering of billions ends) they would do it.

Here is where the arguments got really complex.

One poster responded that if a true AN wanted life to end, they would be FOR the concentration camps as it gets rid of people. Some AN's argued their concern was not killing people but ending suffering. The concentration camps being a perfect example of humanity being a failed and miserable existence.

Now, there were over two hundred comments on it, and I did not have time to sift through all of it, but it does bring about an interesting question.

If ending sentient life is the goal, then how does one argue AGAINST the mass murders and genoide ? However, it seems the crux of the argument was that Kosovo, The Soviet Gulags, The Nazi death camp horrors were a good testament to WHY all life needs to end.

IOW, one AN poster posed the question : "How many concentration camps and slaughterhouses have to exist to convince people that life is all screwed up ?"

Which even lead to more far out discussions. Because some posters were stating that concentration camps were imposing suffering and AN was about ending suffering. But if blowing my brains out ends sentient existence, wouldn't that be an imposition ?

Maybe Manageri  can clear this argument up.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
 Manageri wrote:Fuck you,

 

Manageri wrote:
Fuck you, weasel, is all this spineless, evasive bullshit deserves in response.

What gives you the right Manageri to speak to someone like this?  Especially someone who has made some intelligent comments and doesn't deserve it. This doesn't give your 'argument' any weight at all.  In fact your argument for an objective basis for suffering has been destroyed by Mr C O Jones (and others) and it seems to me rather than go back and respond to his last post that put your argument into serious difficulties you've just started arguing the same thing here and are abusing others over AN on the same objective basis.  Who's the weasel? Why don't you go back to him and explain yourself? Or is your real intention to just operate as a bully and get away it?

Generally speaking there isn’t any justification for name calling and it’s possible to live your life free from verbal abuse, many people do. I'd suggest to anyone reading that if you're dealing with someone who's a name-caller and you’ve become used to verbal abuse on a daily basis it’s important to bear in mind that a name-caller doesn’t have and may not ever be emotionally mature enough to function in a healthy non-abusive relationship even if they are older than you!

‘The Verbally Abusive Relationship – how to recognise and respond’ by Patricia Evans.
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Fuck you,

Manageri wrote:

Fuck you, weasel, is all this spineless, evasive bullshit deserves in response.

 

    Wow, I'm an antinatalist  ( being born entails needless suffering, and I wish I hadn't been ) and I'm a misanthrope ( I consider humans to be evolution's most successful failure, and I despise them ) yet I don't relentlessly whine like you do.  

  Now go ahead and smack me down with a witty rejoinder and assert your supposed ethical superiority over me.  It'll make you feel better.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:Manageri

Peggotty wrote:

Manageri wrote:
Fuck you, weasel, is all this spineless, evasive bullshit deserves in response.

What gives you the right Manageri to speak to someone like this?

When I make an argument countless times and some asshole comes in and says" what argument" then they're just fucking trolling and deserve any abuse I can throw at them.

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Wow, I'm an antinatalist  ( being born entails needless suffering, and I wish I hadn't been ) and I'm a misanthrope ( I consider humans to be evolution's most successful failure, and I despise them ) yet I don't relentlessly whine like you do.  

Now go ahead and smack me down with a witty rejoinder and assert your supposed ethical superiority over me.  It'll make you feel better.

It's called making an argument, dickhead. If you wanna pretend all I do is whine too then I really don't feel the need to make up anything witty for you, fuck you too will do just fine.

Quote:
Especially someone who has made some intelligent comments and doesn't deserve it.

Which one of her arguments to me was intelligent? Which one did I not show to be absolute garbage? Specific example please.

Quote:
This doesn't give your 'argument' any weight at all.

It isn't meant to either, arguments and insults are entirely separate. How about you address the argument instead of complaining about how I talk to people?

Quote:
In fact your argument for an objective basis for suffering has been destroyed by Mr C O Jones (and others) and it seems to me rather than go back and respond to his last post that put your argument into serious difficulties you've just started arguing the same thing here and are abusing others over AN on the same objective basis.  Who's the weasel? Why don't you go back to him and explain yourself? Or is your real intention to just operate as a bully and get away it?

That's absolute bullshit, but even if you were remotely right, the thing is we're discussing AN atm, not objectivity in ethics so this is irrelevant. I stopped responding to him because he has shown himself to have no interest in an honest argument, and he's a moron. If you think he's made some brilliant argument that destroys something I've stated then you're free to bring it up to me and I'll argue it with you as long you're not as dishonest as he is.

Quote:
Generally speaking there isn’t any justification for name calling

Maybe there isn't, but when you act like an asshole and call me a liar and such I'm gonna be just as obnoxious back, I'm just gonna be direct about it and say fuck you rather than make some baseless weasely assertion like that I'm "determined to be as unhappy as I can".


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
I don't like long, involved

I don't like long, involved point by point posts, so I try to avoid making any.  I don't see any other way to respond to this.

 

Manageri wrote:

cj wrote:
 

No one can prevent imposing some risk on others.

So all risk imposition is ok then? Since I risk hitting my cat in the face when I open the door, it's ok for me to risk injuring people by shooting a mortar into the mall, is this your brilliant argument?

 

Strawman.  I did not imply, nor do I condone blowing up shopping malls.  My point was completely that we all have and we have to deal with a certain amount of risk in our lives.  I am not the one advocating removing all life from the earth -

 

Manageri wrote:

Quote:
I don't see why it is being an asshole for me to want to live and want to see my grandson grow up and make his own life.

The argument's about procreation, not your continued existence. 

 

Then the argument is over as far as I am concerned.  If you don't want children, I don't care.  If you want a couple of dozen children, I don't care. 

 

Manageri wrote:

cj wrote:
We are back to choices.  Shit may happen, but your reponse to the shit is your choice.

This is ludicrous, I have no choise in what sensations my brain ultimately blasts my conciousness with and you know it.

 

DUDE, it is YOUR choice in how you respond to those sensations.  Your brain (and everyone else' on the planet) was evolved while your ancestors (and everyone else' on the planet) were dodging mammoths and dagger tooth cats and dire wolves and other large, uncooperative prey.  We ALL have fight or flight responses.  We ALL have inappropriate emotions in the societies we have developed.  I keep telling you, shit happens, your brain goes ballistic, and YOU have a CHOICE about how you respond.  My brain is no exception - if I were near enough at the moment, I would want to slap you silly.  Probably would manage somehow to restrain myself.  Just because I have had lots of practice.  I, too, have impulses and choices in how to deal.

 

Manageri wrote:

Quote:
Let's see, according to this article, she has a relationship with one of her body guards.  No financial worries.  She is rebuilding her relationship with her mother.  She is seeing the therapist less and less.  Her children are working on being normal siblings.  She has her driver's license.  She has her own home.  None of this makes up for her life in the cellar.  But she is making choices to live and be as happy as she is able.  Her choice.  Not yours.  Not mine.  Hers.

So you'd create another similar victim if you had the choise just because their life after the dungeon might be decent, is that your point? 

 

Strawman. 

 

Manageri wrote:

Quote:
I have/had responsibility for being the best parent I could be.  No one is a perfect parent, but that doesn't mean we are all terrible awful.

I'd say imposing the pointless risk of grotesque suffering on your kid merely because of your selfish desire to have a child kinda automatically makes you a shitty parent.

 

My children don't think so - yes, I have asked them.  No other opinion matters.

 

Manageri wrote:

Quote:
It just means we have to work at being a good parent.  And for your information, two of them do have genetic conditions that should make their lives miserable --- but it doesn't seem to be so.

Well I'm glad they got lucky when you played russian roulette with their welfare but that hardly means everyone else does.

 

You are correct, not everyone else got lucky.  If I were god/s/dess, I would fix it, and no child would suffer in any fashion.  But I am not, and I have no control over other people and their choices - just like you.

 

Manageri wrote:

Quote:
Our lives are what we make of them

Yeah, and the only reason I have to "make something" of my life is because two motherfuckers decided they have the right to impose this shit on me for their selfish asshole reasons. 

 

Choices.  Theirs.  Yours.  Fill in the blanks.

 

Manageri wrote:

Quote:
Mangeri wrote:
How about you scroll up and respond to one of the arguments?
 

I would respond if there was something to respond to that made any sense.  Harleysportster's posts make a little more sense than you do, but there still isn't anything I would call an argument.  Just some whining about how awful it all is.  That isn't an argument.

Fuck you, weasel, is all this spineless, evasive bullshit deserves in response.

 

I am not evading, I am trying to understand.  I truly, honestly, don't get it.  Yelling at me doesn't help me understand, btw.  But I am reasonably certain that is all you will do.  So I am resigned to not understanding.

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Wow,

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Wow, I'm an antinatalist  ( being born entails needless suffering, and I wish I hadn't been ) and I'm a misanthrope ( I consider humans to be evolution's most successful failure, and I despise them ) yet I don't relentlessly whine like you do.  

Now go ahead and smack me down with a witty rejoinder and assert your supposed ethical superiority over me.  It'll make you feel better.

 

 

Manageri wrote:
It's called making an argument, dickhead.

 

  No, it's whining.  In fact it's over the top whining.

 

Man geri wrote:
If you wanna pretend all I do is whine too.....

 

   No, it's not pretend whining.  Are you the only one who can't see this ?

 

Manageri wrote:
  ....then I really don't feel the need to make up anything witty for you, fuck you too will do just fine.

 

     Oh, the pain !

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:I don't like long,

cj wrote:

I don't like long, involved point by point posts, so I try to avoid making any.  I don't see any other way to respond to this.

Yeah cos when you actually quote an argument it's harder to pretend it doesn't exist, which is what you're all about. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
cj wrote:
 

No one can prevent imposing some risk on others.

So all risk imposition is ok then? Since I risk hitting my cat in the face when I open the door, it's ok for me to risk injuring people by shooting a mortar into the mall, is this your brilliant argument?

 

Strawman.  I did not imply, nor do I condone blowing up shopping malls.  My point was completely that we all have and we have to deal with a certain amount of risk in our lives.  I am not the one advocating removing all life from the earth -

But you do condone creating people who will hate your guts for it and wish they'd never been born. When you impose risk on someone else it's your fucking job to explain why that imposition is acceptable, you have yet to make any argument defending that.  For example, the ambulance driver can defend the fact he's putting people at risk by breaking traffic rules because he's got an urgent mission and someone's fucked if he doesn't get there fast. Now explain to me what rescue mission you were on when you had your kids.

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Quote:
I don't see why it is being an asshole for me to want to live and want to see my grandson grow up and make his own life.

The argument's about procreation, not your continued existence. 

 

Then the argument is over as far as I am concerned.  If you don't want children, I don't care.  If you want a couple of dozen children, I don't care.

"If you don't wanna rape then I don't care", that's all you're saying. You people use the exact same logic I'm using to condemn procreation to condemn every other thing you deem not acceptable, you just refuse to extend the logic all the way because you know it'd show you're being contradictory assholes. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
cj wrote:
We are back to choices.  Shit may happen, but your reponse to the shit is your choice.

This is ludicrous, I have no choise in what sensations my brain ultimately blasts my conciousness with and you know it.

 

DUDE, it is YOUR choice in how you respond to those sensations.  Your brain (and everyone else' on the planet) was evolved while your ancestors (and everyone else' on the planet) were dodging mammoths and dagger tooth cats and dire wolves and other large, uncooperative prey.  We ALL have fight or flight responses.  We ALL have inappropriate emotions in the societies we have developed.  I keep telling you, shit happens, your brain goes ballistic, and YOU have a CHOICE about how you respond.  My brain is no exception - if I were near enough at the moment, I would want to slap you silly.  Probably would manage somehow to restrain myself.  Just because I have had lots of practice.  I, too, have impulses and choices in how to deal.

I really have zero choise in the fact I'll feel pain when you stab me in the back, nor can I control how much I wanna kick you in the face after you do that, so this is absolute nonsense. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Quote:
Let's see, according to this article, she has a relationship with one of her body guards.  No financial worries.  She is rebuilding her relationship with her mother.  She is seeing the therapist less and less.  Her children are working on being normal siblings.  She has her driver's license.  She has her own home.  None of this makes up for her life in the cellar.  But she is making choices to live and be as happy as she is able.  Her choice.  Not yours.  Not mine.  Hers.

So you'd create another similar victim if you had the choise just because their life after the dungeon might be decent, is that your point? 

 

Strawman.

No, it's a question. Would you or would you not accept the creation of another Fritzl dungeon victim? You have to defend why life is worth continuing considering you know as a statistical fact that shit like that will happen again. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Quote:
I have/had responsibility for being the best parent I could be.  No one is a perfect parent, but that doesn't mean we are all terrible awful.

I'd say imposing the pointless risk of grotesque suffering on your kid merely because of your selfish desire to have a child kinda automatically makes you a shitty parent.

 

My children don't think so - yes, I have asked them.  No other opinion matters.

Yeah, cos that's not a biased question, right? There's no irrational psychology involved there, right? We know if we asked everyone how great their mom is, most people will say their mom is fucking awesome, but we can understand logically that some moms just really fucking suck, just like you really should be able to understand that in a world of 7 billion people you're not the best mom there is, regardless of what your kids say, so this is a ludicrous argument. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Quote:
It just means we have to work at being a good parent.  And for your information, two of them do have genetic conditions that should make their lives miserable --- but it doesn't seem to be so.

Well I'm glad they got lucky when you played russian roulette with their welfare but that hardly means everyone else does.

 

You are correct, not everyone else got lucky.  If I were god/s/dess, I would fix it, and no child would suffer in any fashion.  But I am not, and I have no control over other people and their choices - just like you.

You have control over your uterus so stop making excuses for you gambling with others' welfare. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Quote:
Our lives are what we make of them

Yeah, and the only reason I have to "make something" of my life is because two motherfuckers decided they have the right to impose this shit on me for their selfish asshole reasons. 

 

Choices.  Theirs.  Yours.  Fill in the blanks.

Choises. The rapist's. Fill in the blanks. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Quote:
Mangeri wrote:
How about you scroll up and respond to one of the arguments?
 

I would respond if there was something to respond to that made any sense.  Harleysportster's posts make a little more sense than you do, but there still isn't anything I would call an argument.  Just some whining about how awful it all is.  That isn't an argument.

Fuck you, weasel, is all this spineless, evasive bullshit deserves in response.

I am not evading, I am trying to understand.  I truly, honestly, don't get it.  Yelling at me doesn't help me understand, btw.  But I am reasonably certain that is all you will do.  So I am resigned to not understanding.

You aren't trying to understand shit, if you were you'd address the arguments instead of pretending they don't exist.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: Yes, and

Manageri wrote:

Yes, and rebreeding the animal populations to their previous levels would take time, during which there exists less animals than there would have in the alternative scenario as in less suffering so it's still a win, and I don't see how assholes making profit has anything to do with the ethical question.

 

It really is all about money.  The people who raise livestock, who own feedlots, who truck the animals to the slaughterhouses, who run the slaughterhouses, who truck the cut and packaged meat, who sell the meat, it is all about their profit.  And if you blow up a slaughterhouse, not only will the police be out for you, but so will the insurance companies.  Those places usually have insurance - and I know from personal experience that the insurance companies have lawyers - lots of lawyers.  Whose job is to get their money from the party who caused them to have to pay out.

You may say you are not scared - but you should be.  They will sue you, the group(s) you belong to, and anyone remotely associated with you to redeem what they have to pay out.

But more than that --

The owners will want to get back up running as soon as possible.  And so they will likely buy a kit building.  Steel buildings come in sizes large enough for airport hangers.  And they can custom the interior for you.  A couple of weeks cleaning up, while the building is being designed and prefab.  Then a couple more for the actual building.  Back up in just a few months.  Like here - http://www.americansteelspan.us/

The livestock in the slaughterhouse will be very dead.  The livestock in the holding pens will not be.  The livestock in the feed lots will not be.  The breeding livestock is no where near the slaughterhouse.  Breeding stock is scattered around various ranches in the area.  A rancher owns the cows that he breeds, then he may castrate the bull calves and sell them and some cow calves to other ranchers who raise them to feedlot size.  Then they are "finished" - on corn usually - at the feed lot to slaughter weight.  So it is a pipe line of cattle - killing some at a slaughterhouse will do little to impact the supply and nothing to reduce breeding stock.  All you will have done is kill some workers.  The cattle or pigs or whatever are dead shortly after they enter the slaughterhouse so you won't have any impact on them.

Now, I happen to agree with animal rights groups that factory farms and most slaughterhouses are real close to hell on earth.  But I am also more concerned with the people who work there who are exploited in various ways.  (e.g., http://siouxcityjournal.com/news/local/article_eadd962e-d4d4-5c8f-b27b-ed89b4339fe1.html) I don't see how killing some people who work there, blowing up a building that can be replaced quickly, and making a nuisance of yourself is going to change anyone's mind or their practices.  The people who own these places are not suddenly going to look at the ruins of the building and say - "what a dope I am - I guess I'll go raise beans."  It just is not going to happen.

Think about the middle east.  Has bombing and burning and killing actually changed anyone's mind about the situation over there?  Darn few.

What is the answer?  I don't know.  I don't know how to make everyone vegan, I don't know how to make factory farms more humane, and so on.  I do what I can when I can.  That is all I have been ever able to do.  And I refuse to blow up innocent people just to make a point. 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:What is the

cj wrote:
What is the answer?  I don't know.  I don't know how to make everyone vegan, I don't know how to make factory farms more humane, and so on.  I do what I can when I can.  That is all I have been ever able to do.  And I refuse to blow up innocent people just to make a point.

You aren't even vegan so this is a hilarious statement, yeah you do what you can except when you feel like having a burger and then you drive to the closest Mcdonalds if that's all that's available.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote: But you do

Manageri wrote:

But you do condone creating people who will hate your guts for it and wish they'd never been born. When you impose risk on someone else it's your fucking job to explain why that imposition is acceptable, you have yet to make any argument defending that.  For example, the ambulance driver can defend the fact he's putting people at risk by breaking traffic rules because he's got an urgent mission and someone's fucked if he doesn't get there fast. Now explain to me what rescue mission you were on when you had your kids.

 

Actually, my oldest two children were totally unplanned.  I did not intend to get pregnant.  Once I was, I decided not to have an abortion.  My youngest was planned and we (my ex-husband and I) were very glad to have him.  What rescue mission?  None.  Why have children?  I don't know.  I have wanted children my entire life, a family of my own.  And there were times when I was raising them that I wondered if I had a hole in my head for having them. 

As for hating my guts, they all did at one time or another.  Children go through a stage about 4-5 years old when they yell "I hate you!" every chance they get.  They grow out of it.  And as teenagers, it is perfectly normal for teens to want to distance themselves from their parents.  They grow up, they have lives of their own, and they come visit with your grandchildren.

I would have to say that the reason I had children is to have grandchildren.  I loved my grandmother very much and she loved me.  And I couldn't figure out how to be a grandmother without being a mother first.  So I was.  You will likely find this to be a stupid, unnecessary, cruel reason to bring a child into this suffering world.  I love my grandson more than anyone I have ever loved.  More than his dad.  More than my husband.  More than I can say.  And so, for me, that is reason enough, that this wonderful young person is in the world. 

I frankly don't give a rat's ass what you think of my reasoning and I don't have to justify my actions to you or anyone else.

 

Mangeri wrote:

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Quote:
I don't see why it is being an asshole for me to want to live and want to see my grandson grow up and make his own life.

The argument's about procreation, not your continued existence. 

 

Then the argument is over as far as I am concerned.  If you don't want children, I don't care.  If you want a couple of dozen children, I don't care.

"If you don't wanna rape then I don't care", that's all you're saying. You people use the exact same logic I'm using to condemn procreation to condemn every other thing you deem not acceptable, you just refuse to extend the logic all the way because you know it'd show you're being contradictory assholes. 

 

I have no problem being contradictory, or being an asshole, or being a contradictory asshole.  It has happened before and will likely happen again.  It seems to me, that you are using a "slippery slope" argument here.  Because there is a chance of harm, because there is some risk, then we should respond as if there is certainty of harm and risk.  If that were how I had to live, I really would kill myself.  I enjoy a sunny day with friends and don't worry about meteors or airplanes crashing in my yard.  I prefer to hike up to Multnomah Falls and not worry about the next chunk of basalt to fall and perhaps break limbs or kill people.  Instead, I enjoy the rush of water and the cool forest and the latte I bought at the snack bar.  My choice to enjoy rather than obsess.

http://articles.latimes.com/1995-09-05/news/mn-42472_1_multnomah-falls

 

Mangeri wrote:

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
cj wrote:
We are back to choices.  Shit may happen, but your reponse to the shit is your choice.

This is ludicrous, I have no choise in what sensations my brain ultimately blasts my conciousness with and you know it.

 

DUDE, it is YOUR choice in how you respond to those sensations.  Your brain (and everyone else' on the planet) was evolved while your ancestors (and everyone else' on the planet) were dodging mammoths and dagger tooth cats and dire wolves and other large, uncooperative prey.  We ALL have fight or flight responses.  We ALL have inappropriate emotions in the societies we have developed.  I keep telling you, shit happens, your brain goes ballistic, and YOU have a CHOICE about how you respond.  My brain is no exception - if I were near enough at the moment, I would want to slap you silly.  Probably would manage somehow to restrain myself.  Just because I have had lots of practice.  I, too, have impulses and choices in how to deal.

I really have zero choise in the fact I'll feel pain when you stab me in the back, nor can I control how much I wanna kick you in the face after you do that, so this is absolute nonsense. 

 

Again, slippery slope.  I am talking about every day stress, hassles, and annoyances.  I am not talking about bodily injuries.  If you would stop already with the "let's push it way out there and make it as ridiculous as possible", we could have a reasoned discussion.  As it is, I have no sympathy for your point of view.

 

Mangeri wrote:

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Quote:
Let's see, according to this article, she has a relationship with one of her body guards.  No financial worries.  She is rebuilding her relationship with her mother.  She is seeing the therapist less and less.  Her children are working on being normal siblings.  She has her driver's license.  She has her own home.  None of this makes up for her life in the cellar.  But she is making choices to live and be as happy as she is able.  Her choice.  Not yours.  Not mine.  Hers.

So you'd create another similar victim if you had the choise just because their life after the dungeon might be decent, is that your point? 

 

Strawman.

No, it's a question. Would you or would you not accept the creation of another Fritzl dungeon victim? You have to defend why life is worth continuing considering you know as a statistical fact that shit like that will happen again. 

 

The likelihood of another Fritzl dungeon is statistically remote.  7 billion people and 1 (ONE) incident in the news?  I'll go along with there are probably others that haven't made it to the news - so let's say 100 : 7 billion.  Still very remote.

I can not defend why this person decided life is worth continuing.  She may not have articulated it to herself.  I don't know, and she prefers her privacy.  Each of us has to find the reasons to continue rather than not.  Some of us have to review our reasons constantly - maybe several times a day.  Some of us make up our minds and never think about "why" ever again. 

I could give you my reasons, but why bother?  They are my very own personal reasons and have jackola to do with you or anyone else, including my husband and close friends.  We are all content with the idea that we have all decided life is worth living and so we don't bother to discuss it. 

Would I accept the creation of another Fritzl dungeon?  No.  Would I accept yet another 5 year old little girl being sold by her mother to her drug dealer who then rapes and strangles the baby?  No.  Will I continue to live and enjoy my family and friends even though really bad shit like this happens to people who don't deserve it?  Yes.  Why does this need justification?  That is what I don't understand.  Why do I need to justify my life when I have not created a dungeon, I have not sold children to druggies, I have done none of those things, nor am I responsible for those - and other nasty - things.  Those bad things have nothing to do with me, my family, my friends, my life.  If I and all my family were dead, would that prevent things like that?  No.  If there were no living creatures on the planet - nothing would happen.  Which brings me to what I think you are supporting.  And I see no reason to go there.  I enjoy too much my little life and I have no wish to give up whatever sunsets are in my future.  I see no reason to deny my grandson and any family he may have their sunsets.  And the pain will continue and so will little pleasures that add up to good lives.

 

Mangeri wrote:

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Quote:
I have/had responsibility for being the best parent I could be.  No one is a perfect parent, but that doesn't mean we are all terrible awful.

I'd say imposing the pointless risk of grotesque suffering on your kid merely because of your selfish desire to have a child kinda automatically makes you a shitty parent.

 

My children don't think so - yes, I have asked them.  No other opinion matters.

Yeah, cos that's not a biased question, right? There's no irrational psychology involved there, right? We know if we asked everyone how great their mom is, most people will say their mom is fucking awesome, but we can understand logically that some moms just really fucking suck, just like you really should be able to understand that in a world of 7 billion people you're not the best mom there is, regardless of what your kids say, so this is a ludicrous argument. 

 

I never said I was the best mom ever and neither did my children.  Your opinion really does not matter.

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Would I accept the

cj wrote:

Would I accept the creation of another Fritzl dungeon?  No.  Would I accept yet another 5 year old little girl being sold by her mother to her drug dealer who then rapes and strangles the baby?  No.  Will I continue to live and enjoy my family and friends even though really bad shit like this happens to people who don't deserve it?  Yes.  Why does this need justification?  That is what I don't understand.  Why do I need to justify my life when I have not created a dungeon, I have not sold children to druggies, I have done none of those things, nor am I responsible for those - and other nasty - things.  Those bad things have nothing to do with me, my family, my friends, my life.  If I and all my family were dead, would that prevent things like that?  No.  If there were no living creatures on the planet - nothing would happen.  Which brings me to what I think you are supporting.  And I see no reason to go there.  I enjoy too much my little life and I have no wish to give up whatever sunsets are in my future.  I see no reason to deny my grandson and any family he may have their sunsets.  And the pain will continue and so will little pleasures that add up to good lives.

Well stated.

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:Manageri wrote: But

cj wrote:

Manageri wrote:

But you do condone creating people who will hate your guts for it and wish they'd never been born. When you impose risk on someone else it's your fucking job to explain why that imposition is acceptable, you have yet to make any argument defending that.  For example, the ambulance driver can defend the fact he's putting people at risk by breaking traffic rules because he's got an urgent mission and someone's fucked if he doesn't get there fast. Now explain to me what rescue mission you were on when you had your kids.

 

Actually, my oldest two children were totally unplanned. I did not intend to get pregnant.  Once I was, I decided not to have an abortion.

Oh, brilliant. "I was an irresponsibe asshole but I didn't INTEND to hit anyone with my car and paralyze them just because I decided to go out for a drive in a car with broken brakes", that's your justification. You're not from the 16th century, there was birth control available to you but you CHOSE to not take proper precautions to prevent a pregnancy, and you chose not to have an abortion so how the hell can you sit there pretending it wasn't your fault and it 'just happened'?

Quote:
My youngest was planned and we (my ex-husband and I) were very glad to have him.  What rescue mission?  None.  Why have children?  I don't know.  I have wanted children my entire life, a family of my own.  And there were times when I was raising them that I wondered if I had a hole in my head for having them.

Yeah, no excuse to drive with broken brakes and you don't even think you have to justify the risks you impose, you really do suck.

Quote:
As for hating my guts, they all did at one time or another.  Children go through a stage about 4-5 years old when they yell "I hate you!" every chance they get.  They grow out of it.  And as teenagers, it is perfectly normal for teens to want to distance themselves from their parents.  They grow up, they have lives of their own, and they come visit with your grandchildren.

Yeah it's kinda like how they learn to take others into account at a pretty early age too and understand you cant stick your legos in your sister's eye for no reason, but you seemed to skip that part of maturation. I'm not talking about some tantrum and you know it, I've made a philosophical argument explaining why it's wrong so implying I just have the mentality of a 5 year old is nothing but a weasely move on your part to try to escape having to justify your actions and paint my criticism as unreasonable.

Quote:
I would have to say that the reason I had children is to have grandchildren.  I loved my grandmother very much and she loved me.  And I couldn't figure out how to be a grandmother without being a mother first.  So I was.  You will likely find this to be a stupid, unnecessary, cruel reason to bring a child into this suffering world.  I love my grandson more than anyone I have ever loved.  More than his dad.  More than my husband.  More than I can say.  And so, for me, that is reason enough, that this wonderful young person is in the world. 

I frankly don't give a rat's ass what you think of my reasoning and I don't have to justify my actions to you or anyone else.

"Well I had a daughter so I can lock her in the basement and rape her a few thousand times, I love my daughter very much. You will likely find this to be a stupid, unnecessary, cruel reason to bring a child into this suffering world, but I frankly don't give a rat's ass what you think of my reasoning and I don't have to justify my actions to you or anyone else."

Yes, you really do have to justify imposing risk on others, and going "I love them veeeery much" doesn't do a motherfucking thing towards accomplishing that.

Quote:
Mangeri wrote:

"If you don't wanna rape then I don't care", that's all you're saying. You people use the exact same logic I'm using to condemn procreation to condemn every other thing you deem not acceptable, you just refuse to extend the logic all the way because you know it'd show you're being contradictory assholes. 

 

I have no problem being contradictory, or being an asshole, or being a contradictory asshole.

Then how the hell are you gonna condemn a monster like Fritzl and be logically consistent? Oh that's right, you don't care about being a contradictory asshole, so you can do whatever you want and still point accusing fingers at others, and if your victims complain about your assholery you'll just tell them they can magically make themselves happy if they try hard enough so it isn't REALLY your fault they're miserable, right? It's pathetic this is the kinda bullshit you people have to resort to in order to defend your procreation. I mean seriously, you would laugh your ass off if someone used this bullshit to defend being a rapist, which they could just as easily do. "I don't care about consistency" works just as well (or badly) for everything.

Quote:
It has happened before and will likely happen again.  It seems to me, that you are using a "slippery slope" argument here.  Because there is a chance of harm, because there is some risk, then we should respond as if there is certainty of harm and risk.  If that were how I had to live, I really would kill myself.  I enjoy a sunny day with friends and don't worry about meteors or airplanes crashing in my yard.  I prefer to hike up to Multnomah Falls and not worry about the next chunk of basalt to fall and perhaps break limbs or kill people.  Instead, I enjoy the rush of water and the cool forest and the latte I bought at the snack bar.  My choice to enjoy rather than obsess.

No, it's a statistical fact that some amount of kids out of a thousand or whatever will be born without skin, another number will be paralyzed, some will commit suicide, some will have most of their body burned and their face hideously deformed etc. You KNOW that these kinda things happen and you KNOW that there is ultimately not a goddamn thing you can do to prevent that fate from befalling your kids, so you are imposing those risks and much more on them without their consent and not for their benefit, but to satisfy your selfish desire to have a child, and that is why procreators are imposing motherfuckers of the worst kind unless they can provide sufficient justification for their imposition, something you don't even care to attempt, so you really are fucking evil. 

Quote:
Mangeri wrote:

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
cj wrote:
We are back to choices.  Shit may happen, but your reponse to the shit is your choice.

This is ludicrous, I have no choise in what sensations my brain ultimately blasts my conciousness with and you know it.

 

DUDE, it is YOUR choice in how you respond to those sensations.  Your brain (and everyone else' on the planet) was evolved while your ancestors (and everyone else' on the planet) were dodging mammoths and dagger tooth cats and dire wolves and other large, uncooperative prey.  We ALL have fight or flight responses.  We ALL have inappropriate emotions in the societies we have developed.  I keep telling you, shit happens, your brain goes ballistic, and YOU have a CHOICE about how you respond.  My brain is no exception - if I were near enough at the moment, I would want to slap you silly.  Probably would manage somehow to restrain myself.  Just because I have had lots of practice.  I, too, have impulses and choices in how to deal.

I really have zero choise in the fact I'll feel pain when you stab me in the back, nor can I control how much I wanna kick you in the face after you do that, so this is absolute nonsense. 

 

Again, slippery slope.  I am talking about every day stress, hassles, and annoyances.  I am not talking about bodily injuries.  If you would stop already with the "let's push it way out there and make it as ridiculous as possible", we could have a reasoned discussion.  As it is, I have no sympathy for your point of view.

Lol, stabbings are "as ridicilous as possible"? How many stabbings do you think take place in the world every day? And no, people obviously can't magically control every day bullshit either so fuck your victim blaming nonsense. 

Quote:
Mangeri wrote:

No, it's a question. Would you or would you not accept the creation of another Fritzl dungeon victim? You have to defend why life is worth continuing considering you know as a statistical fact that shit like that will happen again. 

 

The likelihood of another Fritzl dungeon is statistically remote.  7 billion people and 1 (ONE) incident in the news?  I'll go along with there are probably others that haven't made it to the news - so let's say 100 : 7 billion.  Still very remote.

You honestly think when I said "shit like that" that I meant the exact same scenario? The point is, disgusting shit happens to people all the time, whether it's being locked in a dungeon or having both their arms amputated or whatever. These kinda things are not at all rare in the big picture of seven billion people.

Quote:
I can not defend why this person decided life is worth continuing.

That's not the subject since we're not arguing over suicide, regardless of whether some people can get that through their thick skulls.

Quote:
Would I accept the creation of another Fritzl dungeon?  No.  Would I accept yet another 5 year old little girl being sold by her mother to her drug dealer who then rapes and strangles the baby?  No.

You can say no but your actions tell a different story. Those particular things are not a great risk to your kids but equally gruesome shit can happen to them and you know it.

Quote:
Will I continue to live and enjoy my family and friends even though really bad shit like this happens to people who don't deserve it?  Yes.  Why does this need justification?

Once again, ANs aren't asking you to justify YOUR existence, we're asking you to justify imposing on someone else.

Quote:
That is what I don't understand.  Why do I need to justify my life when I have not created a dungeon, I have not sold children to druggies, I have done none of those things, nor am I responsible for those - and other nasty - things.

You're obviously responsible for imposing the risk of that kind of shit happening to your kids.

Quote:
Those bad things have nothing to do with me, my family, my friends, my life.  If I and all my family were dead, would that prevent things like that?  No.  If there were no living creatures on the planet - nothing would happen.  Which brings me to what I think you are supporting.  And I see no reason to go there.  I enjoy too much my little life and I have no wish to give up whatever sunsets are in my future.  I see no reason to deny my grandson and any family he may have their sunsets.  And the pain will continue and so will little pleasures that add up to good lives.

That's really neat but it's still not the subject, we're arguing over creating new people, not your existing family. 

Quote:
I never said I was the best mom ever and neither did my children.  Your opinion really does not matter.

I didn't say that either, the point was that asking them questions like "Am I a good mom" is completely useless for trying to figure out something real, since there's obvious illogical bias in people's assesment of their own mothers. I'm sure you've seen people who have been just brutally abused by their mothers say as adults that they still love them dearly and all that crap, when if a stranger had done the exact same things they'd despise them and want them thrown in jail.


Mr C O Jones
Mr C O Jones's picture
Posts: 34
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
That's absolute bullshit

Manageri wrote:
That's absolute bullshit, but even if you were remotely right, the thing is we're discussing AN atm, not objectivity in ethics so this is irrelevant. I stopped responding to him because he has shown himself to have no interest in an honest argument, and he's a moron. If you think he's made some brilliant argument that destroys something I've stated then you're free to bring it up to me and I'll argue it with you as long you're not as dishonest as he is.

Hey, fuckface, what the fuck do you mean it’s bullshit that I didn’t destroy your ‘arguments’ on ethics?  I wiped the floor with you, you lying little scumbag, to such an extent that you were too frightened, or too thick (probably both) to come back to me on the questions I asked you in my last post. Total victory to me – now crawl away with your tail between yor legs and stop trying to cover your tracks with all this bullshit about antinatalism.  It’s just your same fuckwitted, one trick pony argument about ethics dressed up in a different form.

Manageri wrote:
It's not my fault the number on the calculator turned up negative..
 

   
How do you establish this supposed ‘fact’ that suffering outweighs pleasure in the world?  What objective measure or scientific research are you referring to?  And why do you say that the argument isn’t about an objective basis to ethics when that’s exactly what your argument supposedly rests on, i.e. that suffering objectively outweighs pleasure in this world?

Why can’t we use the potential happiness of the unborn to justify natalism when you’re using the potential suffering of the unborn to justify antinatalism? You fucked up again, fuckface.

And if life equals suffering then continued life equals continued suffering, so you should be arguing for the euthanizing of all sentient beings.  As long as it’s done painlessly you’ll be saving them a lot of suffering, so how come you’re not arguing for this when the avoidance of suffering seems to be the basis of your whole rationale?

Of course what you’re really arguing for is for someone to painlessly euthanize you – you’ve said yourself you want to do it, but just haven’t got the guts to do it by any means that might hurt.  So once again we see that your supposed ‘philosophical argument’ about antinatalism is just a pathetic cry for help from a sad, lonely, unemployed, clinically depressed, educationally sub-normal, little scumbag lefty who’s never had a relationship and never will.  The question of antinatalism doesn’t arise in your case, because who the fuck would want to have kids with a loser like you? So all you’re doing is trying to dress up your abject personal failure as some kind of grand, philosophical theory.

When you rhetorically ask why people have babies, what you’re really saying is ‘mom, dad, why the fuck did you have me? I was supposed to have a happy life, have friends, girl friends, a job, money……and here I am, miserable, lonely, mentally ill, a virgin…..mommy, daddy help me!  I wish I was dead, I wish everyone was dead.’

Now listen to me, son.  Try not to fret, you’ll get a girlfriend eventually.  The first thing you need to do is try and get yourself a job – try the local supermarket – they don’t need much in the way of qualifications, and they tend to give those with a history of mental problems a chance.  Once you’re in there, maybe you can make some friends, go out for a beer, and…..who knows, maybe some nice young girl will say to herself ‘hey there’s a guy I’d love to commit natalism with….yeah, him – that skinny-assed one over there, eating that T-bone steak and looking at me with those puppy dog eyes’.
 

I quote no 'authorities'. I speak in my own words. I bring everything to the bar of my own judgment.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Oh,

Manageri wrote:

Oh, brilliant. "I was an irresponsibe asshole but I didn't INTEND to hit anyone with my car and paralyze them just because I decided to go out for a drive in a car with broken brakes", that's your justification. You're not from the 16th century, there was birth control available to you but you CHOSE to not take proper precautions to prevent a pregnancy, and you chose not to have an abortion so how the hell can you sit there pretending it wasn't your fault and it 'just happened'?

 

Let's back up a bit.  Until the mid 1970s (haven't found the exact date, but I'll keep looking if you insist), it was illegal in the state of Arizona (where I lived at the time) for a doctor to discuss with, let alone prescribe birth control for an unmarried woman.  The doctor was not allowed to discuss the rhythm method, let alone condoms, iud's, or the brand new birth control pill.  It didn't matter if you were in your 40s, if you were unmarried, you were s.o.l.  Is that an excuse for me not looking it up in the library (remember, no google at the time)?  Probably not.  Is that an excuse for not keeping my pants zipped?  No.  But it is what happened.  Remember, even now, no birth control method is 100% effective unless you are removing testicles and uteri completely or at least one participant in the party is dead.  And even then, I wouldn't count on it.

 

As for the rest of your post--

I will not attempt to understand, justify, or condemn another person's decision about having children.  You can scream about rape and dungeons and blowing up shopping malls all you want.  It is completely irrelevant.  Having a child responsibly (not drugged to the gills or wanting a baby doll to love) is up to the parties involved.  It is not my decision, nor yours, and neither of us have the right to approve or condemn.

Yes, all the nasty shit is possible.  This poor woman has a birth defect and has no body fat ---

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2202512/Worlds-ugliest-woman-Lizzie-Velasquez-gives-courageous-interview.html

 

Her parents had more children after she was born and they are normal.  They felt the risk was worth the joy.  IT WAS THEIR DECISION NOT YOURS, FUCKHEAD.

They don't have to justify themselves to you or anybody else.  And neither do I.  You might want to read her book that is coming out shortly.

It is reasonable and rational to judge and condemn the actions of adults once the child is born.  Almost every society I have ever heard of has standards, laws, ethics, morals regarding living people.  The age one is considered to be living varies according to the conditions in which a child is born.  For example, some hunter-gatherer societies did not consider you a real person until you were an adult (often the age of puberty) because of high childhood mortality.  In modern industrialized countries we are all debating about "when life begins" since we can now keep exceeding young premature infants alive - like Ms. Velasquez.

Regardless of risk, regardless of sadistic assholes, it is not your place or mine to second guess the parents of said children.  Each of us has to make that decision for ourselves.  Yelling at me and trying to make me feel guilty or upset isn't going to change my mind on this.

And we are back to - do what you want.  And I'll do what I want.  As long as we both are law-abiding, you and I have no other option.  I have no idea what makes you think it is okay to condemn your parents for having you and raising you the way you were raised.  Obviously you believe your life is worse than anything anyone can imagine.  It is your choice how to respond to the shit you have had happen to you.  And I still am not impressed with your choice.

 

You will never be happy if you continue to search for what happiness consists of. You will never live if you are looking for the meaning of life.  -- Albert Camus

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:......

Manageri wrote:
...... arguments and insults are entirely separate. How about you address the argument instead of complaining about how I talk to people?


X   = possible good life     (+) good
X   = possible bad life       (-)  bad
NX = no possible good life (-) neutral
NX = no possible bad life   (+) good

Mathematically it makes more sense to not exist than to exist because we avoid the most important thing which is the ability to be harmed.

I’m just arguing for being assertive rather than aggressive to avoid causing unnecessary harm.

Jim Crawford another antinatalist has three children – strange, no?
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:Jim Crawford

Peggotty wrote:

Jim Crawford another antinatalist has three children – strange, no?
 

      Inconsistent at the very least.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Peggotty wrote:Manageri

Peggotty wrote:

Manageri wrote:
...... arguments and insults are entirely separate. How about you address the argument instead of complaining about how I talk to people?


X   = possible good life     (+) good
X   = possible bad life       (-)  bad
NX = no possible good life (-) neutral
NX = no possible bad life   (+) good

Mathematically it makes more sense to not exist than to exist because we avoid the most important thing which is the ability to be harmed.

Yeah, that's one way to put the argument, now what's your counter to that?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Peggotty wrote:

Jim Crawford another antinatalist has three children – strange, no?

      Inconsistent at the very least.

Yeah, it's inconceivable that someone can change their mind about something, right? This is like calling vegetarians hypocrites because they ate meat at one point because they didn't know any better. Quite obviously he did not have kids while he was an antinatalist so this is nothing but useless, lazily thought up slander.

cj wrote:

I will not attempt to understand, justify, or condemn another person's decision about having children.  You can scream about rape and dungeons and blowing up shopping malls all you want.  It is completely irrelevant.  Having a child responsibly (not drugged to the gills or wanting a baby doll to love) is up to the parties involved.  It is not my decision, nor yours, and neither of us have the right to approve or condemn.

Yes, and one of the parties involved is the child, whose rights and interests you thoughtlessly step on and assert you need no justification for that. I'm not gonna waste my time with the rest of your post because it's the same shit I responded to already and you obviously have no interest in responding to 90% of the shit I type so go ahead and sit there pretending you have no need to justify fucking with someone else's welfare.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Yeah, it's

Manageri wrote:

Yeah, it's inconceivable that someone can change their mind about something, right? ....(snip).... Quite obviously he did not have kids while he was an antinatalist so this is nothing but useless, lazily thought up slander.

 

 

              Slander ?  My god do you ever tire of being a drama queen ?   I don't care if someone changes their mind.  Unlike you, I'm not consumed with dogma just because I have an opinion. 

 

 

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Slander ?  My god do you ever tire of being a drama queen ?

Falsely calling someone inconsistent isn't slander? Explain to me how that doesn't fit the definition. Here I'll even provide it for you:

"a false, malicious statement (spoken or published), especially one which is injurious to a person's reputation; the making of such a statement."

Quote:
I don't care if someone changes their mind.  Unlike you, I'm not consumed with dogma just because I have an opinion.

Explain to me, fucker, what part of AN is dogma? What part is asserted as true with no evidence whatsoever and isn't considered open to criticism by us? Fuck you and your slander.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Falsely

Manageri wrote:

Falsely calling someone inconsistent isn't slander? Explain to me how that doesn't fit the definition. Here I'll even provide it for you:

"a false, malicious statement (spoken or published), especially one which is injurious to a person's reputation; the making of such a statement."

 

   Well fucker I am completely unfamiliar with this particular antinatalist you see ?   My response was made based upon what little I knew about him, fucker.  If that causes you to fly into a rage ( again ) then that is your problem to deal with fucker.

 

 

Manageri wrote:
Explain to me, fucker, what part of AN is dogma? What part is asserted as true with no evidence whatsoever and isn't considered open to criticism by us? Fuck you and your slander.

 

   Well fucker I personally advocate antinatalism and have never reproduced.   It's a shame for everyone who comes in contact with you that your own parents weren't antinatalists as well....fucker.

 

                                                                                                             

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Well

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Well fucker I am completely unfamiliar with this particular antinatalist you see ?   My response was made based upon what little I knew about him, fucker.  If that causes you to fly into a rage ( again ) then that is your problem to deal with fucker.

Well then maybe instead of attacking me for revealing your statement to be bullshit, the more honest response would have been to state you didn't know what you were talking about, or even just shutting the fuck up. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
Explain to me, fucker, what part of AN is dogma? What part is asserted as true with no evidence whatsoever and isn't considered open to criticism by us? Fuck you and your slander.

   Well fucker I personally advocate antinatalism and have never reproduced.   It's a shame for everyone who comes in contact with you that your own parents weren't antinatalists as well....fucker.

So you just called your own philosophy dogmatic? Brilliant.

 


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Well then

Manageri wrote:

Well then maybe instead of attacking me for revealing your statement to be bullshit, the more honest response would have been to state you didn't know what you were talking about, or even just shutting the fuck up.

 

    Well  fucker instead of attacking me for making a fucking mistake the more honest response would have been for you to say that you are a fucking neurotic dick who is on the verge of a psychotic break, fucker.

 

 

Manageri wrote:

  

So you just called your own philosophy dogmatic? Brilliant.

 

 

       You really do have comprehension problems don't you, fucker ?  You should go upstairs and complain to mommy and daddy about that problem, it's their fault anyway, fucker.

 

  

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Manageri wrote:

Well then maybe instead of attacking me for revealing your statement to be bullshit, the more honest response would have been to state you didn't know what you were talking about, or even just shutting the fuck up.

 

    Well  fucker instead of attacking me for making a fucking mistake the more honest response would have been for you to say that you are a fucking neurotic dick who is on the verge of a psychotic break, fucker.

 

 

Manageri wrote:

  

So you just called your own philosophy dogmatic? Brilliant.

 

 

       You really do have comprehension problems don't you, fucker ?  You should go upstairs and complain to mommy and daddy about that problem, it's their fault anyway, fucker.

 

  

Not meaning to butt in here, but I would guess that this means that not every Anti-Natalist may share the same worldview. Which I guess just revealed my own ignorance. I know how I get pissed when people make sweeping generalizations about how "ALL" Atheists think, so I guess it is the same with AN's.

I was fucking around today and got to see some more comments on youtube, that cleared up some of the previous questions that I had posed on here.

Alot of the posters that were against AN kept using the "kill yourself" argument. (Which pissed a lot of AN's off and I can see why. I have to admit that it did become a tiresome argument and even I wanted to tell some of those posters to fuck off). Telling AN's to kill themselves is really something of a non-sequitur when I really sounded it down. Because AN at it's core, is not about murdering people, it is simply about not creating more life.

Much like so many people will say "All Atheists believe" and I have to tirelessly respond that Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god, nothing more, nothing less.

I think the same thing could be said for Anti-Natalism. Anti-Natalism is about ending procreation, nothing more and nothing less really.

But anyhow, I had posed a question earlier on here about the accusations that some AN opponents that I had found out there were making that AN's should be for death camps, genocide, and slaughter since that helped end life. But in reality, that is a strawman argument to make against Anti-Natalism. (Well, at least most of the AN posters whose responses I was reading it would be a strawman).

One poster put it like this : "I love and enjoy life as much as I can, but I just want to make sure that I don't perpetuate all of my ups and downs and pains onto another."  Another poster put it that : " A sentient, living being has value because it exists. It feels pain. That is WHY it has value, it feels. Why would anyone want to bring a vulnerable living thing into this fragile world ? "

Now of course, a post or two doesn't speak for all AN's. But I see where alot of people are mistaking the argument that an AN position would be for advocating violent and nihilist behavior, when that does not seem to be the case at all. It seems that most of the AN's I have encountered on the web, feel the way that they do, because of all the violent behavior and nihilism that is afoot in the world.

But. Those are just my understandings thus far. I'll leave it up to the readers to decide and draw their own conclusions.

I am not sure why I did so much reading and checking this subject out. Call it curiousity. And in this case, Curiousity did not kill the cartoon cat on a motorcycle.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3558
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Well for me I am an

  Well for me I am an antinatalist as a matter of principle but I don't attempt to champion it as a cause.  Antinatalism goes against human nature ( not that I'm a fan of human nature ) and there's no chance in hell that even a remote number of people are going to adopt that point of view.  There are 7 billion reasons why I am pessimistic about it ever becoming a significant movement.

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.


Peggotty
atheist
Peggotty's picture
Posts: 116
Joined: 2012-08-07
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Yeah, it's

Manageri wrote:

Yeah, it's inconceivable that someone can change their mind about something, right? ...... Quite obviously he did not have kids while he was an antinatalist so this is nothing but useless, lazily thought up slander.

 
Not slander.  Jim Crawford freely admits he has kids on his blog and isn’t hung up about it like you.

http://antinatalism.blogspot.co.uk/2008/01/introduction.html
 

Oh, but Peggotty, you haven't given Mr. Barkis his proper answer, you know.
Charles Dickens


GodsUseForAMosquito
ModeratorBronze Member
GodsUseForAMosquito's picture
Posts: 404
Joined: 2008-08-27
User is offlineOffline
 Apologies for the delay in

 Apologies for the delay in replying - living life trumps online debating for me (most of the time).

 

 I'd like to get back to your fundamental point, and the arguments for and against this, if I may.

 

 The core of your position is as follows: (which I'll restate for anyone casually browsing):

 

 "Since we cannot guarantee that any children we may have will not suffer to the extent they would have preferred not to have been born, then it is unjustifiable to bring them into the world, as never having been born is preferable to them, and also doesn't harm those who might have been born generally suffering-free".

 

 You cite the case of the woman trapped in the Fritzl dungeon and posit that surely it would be better if she had never been born, and that many other people are in similarly large amounts of suffering.

 

 Finally, your position as I understand it is that global wellbeing is at a negative level, and so the best that it can be is neutral, which means no sentient life.

 

 Your arguments seem to vary between the potential of creating a life with the possibility of negative suffering, and the overall level of suffering for the group, and you use one or the other to justify your position, depending on which makes the stronger rebuttal at the time. I think we need to iron this out.

 

Regarding the issue of risking an unborn person's suffering (to be greater than makes life worthwhile) - I am in agreement with you. On an individual level there seems to be no justification for this.

 

But let's look at it on a group level. That is - does the creation of a new individual into the group cause an increase in overall group suffering? Here is where the debate lies. If it can be shown that the general creation of individuals (and the potential individual suffering that this may lead to) may on average REDUCE the overall suffering of the group, than it is worthwhile for that group to spawn new individuals. Granted, some cases may increase the overall suffering, but it's the GENERAL increase or decrease in suffering that is the important point here.

 

I don't believe this is a new discussion for you - you have argued this case yourself, with the assumption that new individuals generally increase overall suffering.

 

Let's briefly take some examples: Your example of extreme individual suffering (eg being born without skin, the the woman in the dungeon) can be countered, I believe, by identifying types of individuals that reduce suffering by a large amount in the group. I'll give the example of Alexander Fleming - the discoverer of antibiotics - as such a person, where his existence led to the reduction of suffering of billions of people.

 

So, if there was the option of "If you have a child, they will either be locked in a room and raped regularly for 20 years, OR they will discover something that saves the lives and reduces suffering of billions of people" Should the child be born? As far as the welfare of the group is concerned, the answer should be obvious.

 

The point is, when considering the group welfare, if you consider that a new individual is more likely to increase overall suffering, then Antinatalism is valid. If you consider that, on the contrary, new individuals on average reduce overall suffering, then AN is invalid.

 

Manageri wrote:
It's not my fault the number on the calculator turned up negative..
 

 

Basically - Please prove that it's negative.

One or the other may be true. My point is, how can you demonstrate to me conclusively that group welfare deteriorates with an increase in numbers? I believe this equation is too complex for you or I to be able to work out.

 


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Well for me I am an antinatalist as a matter of principle but I don't attempt to champion it as a cause.  Antinatalism goes against human nature ( not that I'm a fan of human nature ) and there's no chance in hell that even a remote number of people are going to adopt that point of view.  There are 7 billion reasons why I am pessimistic about it ever becoming a significant movement.

I lean towards Beyond's above post that modernization could have the potential to reduce population.

As far as myself is concerned, I personally choose to not have children for somewhat selfish reasons. I don't want the responsibilites, I don't want to struggle with putting them through school and  them going through all of the unpleasantness that I went through, I don't want to try and teach them what they need to do with their lives because I haven't done the greatest job with my own. I'd just rather not reproduce and go through all of the drudgery that it entails. My partner agrees with me.

Besides, while her and I love each other, whose to say that four or five years from now we won't decide to part ways ? No one and nothing can guarantee that ,because there are no happily ever afters. So, if we ever decide to break up, we go our separate ways and move on. IF we had children, then we are tied together for life. Even after the kids turn 18, they don't go their merry way and forget about you.

I never have liked the idea of the white-picket fence, two  car garage, nuclear family life. Not even when I was a young idealistic theist.

But that's just me. What do we do about all the irresponsible assholes out there that are procreating ? There is not much that I think can be done. Other than to take away the financial benefits that some of them seem to suck out of society, but that is not a guarantee that they will stop breeding and then you have poverty-stricken miserable people with young children and no assistance and the potential for more neglect and abuse. (I have nothing to base that on other than speculation).

So I don't have the answers. I just know that in a world of IUD's, birth control pills, condoms, morning after pills, etc. There is no need for these irresponsible people to continue procreating. I think those theist assholes have no business converting third world people to christianity and not handing out condoms to them and telling them it is god's will that all of this is happening.

So that is just how I see it personally.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
GodsUseForAMosquito

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

 Finally, your position as I understand it is that global wellbeing is at a negative level, and so the best that it can be is neutral, which means no sentient life.

Yeah but it really doesn't matter. Even if we had 7 billion awesome lives and one dungeon victim, there still would have been absolutely no necessity to create those 7 billion and so using that one dungeon victim's torture as fuel for their party is wrong. 

Quote:
Regarding the issue of risking an unborn person's suffering (to be greater than makes life worthwhile) - I am in agreement with you. On an individual level there seems to be no justification for this. 

But let's look at it on a group level. That is - does the creation of a new individual into the group cause an increase in overall group suffering? Here is where the debate lies. If it can be shown that the general creation of individuals (and the potential individual suffering that this may lead to) may on average REDUCE the overall suffering of the group, than it is worthwhile for that group to spawn new individuals. Granted, some cases may increase the overall suffering, but it's the GENERAL increase or decrease in suffering that is the important point here.

This would be valid if the group for some reason had to exist. There is no such necessity and so there's no defense for creating more victims. It's very much possible that ending procreation could make things worse for the still existing humans, but their suffering in comparison to the amount of suffering we'd have if we keep the machine going for countless more generations is obviously tiny.

I could use your argument to justify creating more people into all kinds of hellish scenarios. Let's say you actually have a thousand people in hell, and those people are given a choise of either enduring their torture for 50 years and then ceasing to exist, or enduring it for only 25 years at which point another person will take their place who will suffer a tiny bit less. Now you can use the justification that it reduces overall suffering if you take the deal at 25 years, but you can see how that's an asshole move (I hope) and how it opens the door to a fuckton more suffering taking place as all the new people can also take that deal, and so the original people enduring their 50 years would have been the best option. 

Quote:
Manageri wrote:
It's not my fault the number on the calculator turned up negative..
  

Basically - Please prove that it's negative.

One or the other may be true. My point is, how can you demonstrate to me conclusively that group welfare deteriorates with an increase in numbers? I believe this equation is too complex for you or I to be able to work out.

I was referring to all life there, not humans. I obviously can't measure how awesome life is for all animals either but I think it's fairly obvious they aren't having a great time out there.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

"Logically" the only problem I have with your ethical system is why you don't kill yourself. If avoidence of suffering is the paramount concern in your morality, and if you are certain to experience suffering if you continue living, and if non-existence precludes the ability to suffer, your only ethically sound path is suicide in a way that causes less suffering than the remaining suffering you'll experience if you live out your lifespan.

 

If you *do* put value on happiness (or whatever metric balances out against suffering) then the question is what's the equation? Once we have that equation we can figure out whether the average human/critter life born into a specific circumstance is morally defensible or not. We could also figure out if your ethical energy would be better spent focusing on pushing AN philosophy, or eliminating suffering, or encouraging the counterweight to suffering.

That argument got brought up ALOT on the AN YouTube vids.

(Again, I don't make the news, I'm just reporting it)  Smiling

But alot of  people asked "If life is so horrible, why don't all of you AN's kill yourselves?"

The replies were : "If you told one Jewish person in a concentration camp to kill themselves, would that solve the problem ? "

To which another expounded by stating : "If you told one Jewish person that killing themselves would simultaneously kill Adolf Hitler and eliminate the Third Reich and the camps, then it would be worth it"

From what I gather, the crux of the AN posters were stating that if killing themselves could actually accomplish something (i.e. blow my brains out and humanity ends, or blow my brains out and the suffering of billions ends) they would do it.

Here is where the arguments got really complex.

One poster responded that if a true AN wanted life to end, they would be FOR the concentration camps as it gets rid of people. Some AN's argued their concern was not killing people but ending suffering. The concentration camps being a perfect example of humanity being a failed and miserable existence.

Now, there were over two hundred comments on it, and I did not have time to sift through all of it, but it does bring about an interesting question.

If ending sentient life is the goal, then how does one argue AGAINST the mass murders and genoide ? However, it seems the crux of the argument was that Kosovo, The Soviet Gulags, The Nazi death camp horrors were a good testament to WHY all life needs to end.

IOW, one AN poster posed the question : "How many concentration camps and slaughterhouses have to exist to convince people that life is all screwed up ?"

Which even lead to more far out discussions. Because some posters were stating that concentration camps were imposing suffering and AN was about ending suffering. But if blowing my brains out ends sentient existence, wouldn't that be an imposition ?

Maybe Manageri  can clear this argument up.

 

 

I'm just trying to follow the chain of logic that begins with suffering being bad and basing your morality on that. I think it gets complex because the answer really is simple, and it really is to kill yourself. But people don't want to kill themselves, so there is a lot of ethical hand-wringing to justify why the obvious course isn't taken. I grant that you could also justify trying to destroy existing life, and that's another inconsistency...a shooting spree ending in suicide would be a simple way to get an ethical win.

 

I just don't think they are being consistent with their starting premise and following where that premise leads.

 

You can get out of that "trap" by putting some value on non-suffering life, or "happy" life, but then the equations come in. A good example of how confusing this is to Menageri is in this thread. This:

 

X = possible good life (+) good
X = possible bad life (-) bad
NX = no possible good life (-) neutral
NX = no possible bad life (+) good

 

Was brought up, and Menageri thought it was an accurate way to put forth the ethics of AN. If it is such an ethically binary choice, then I think you end up and killing yourself or possibly trying to kill others. The practical reality of having no success spreading the AN message precludes your other options. As I mentioned earlier, the chances that Menageri is going to convince anyone to follow his ethical system is grim, easily outweighed by the suffering he will experience and cause within his remaining life.

 

The thing is, it isn't such a binary ethical system, that doesn't make sense if you are weighing the choice. You'd actually need to put it like this:

 

x = possible good in a life 1-100

x = possible bad in life -(1-100)

x = non existence 0

Then you have to do the math, and it would be complex. How much weight does the suffering/happiness of a cat get? How about a cow? A lobster? A person? A bacteria? A tree? Is it possible to make an objective metric of subjective experience? etc. etc. Tons of questions. If you went through that exercise and arrived at AN, at least you'd have something to debate. I don't see the converstation even making it that far. The actual equation that seems to be used by AN is:

 

x = suffering in life = bad

x = non existence = not bad

Therefore, it is immoral to cause life.

With that equation though, it is also immoral to live. To bring in any justification for why living is OK, you need something fancier, and that's where it goes off the rails for me.

 

Meh.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri

Manageri wrote:

GodsUseForAMosquito wrote:

Regarding the issue of risking an unborn person's suffering (to be greater than makes life worthwhile) - I am in agreement with you. On an individual level there seems to be no justification for this. 

But let's look at it on a group level. That is - does the creation of a new individual into the group cause an increase in overall group suffering? Here is where the debate lies. If it can be shown that the general creation of individuals (and the potential individual suffering that this may lead to) may on average REDUCE the overall suffering of the group, than it is worthwhile for that group to spawn new individuals. Granted, some cases may increase the overall suffering, but it's the GENERAL increase or decrease in suffering that is the important point here.

This would be valid if the group for some reason had to exist. There is no such necessity and so there's no defense for creating more victims. It's very much possible that ending procreation could make things worse for the still existing humans, but their suffering in comparison to the amount of suffering we'd have if we keep the machine going for countless more generations is obviously tiny.

The group does in fact exist and short of you coming up with some way to exterminate every living human quickly, the group is going to continue to exist. So even if you assume that the best possible option would be non-existence for everyone, any rational person can see that option isn't viable. People will continue to have children and you are never going to convince 100% of them not to. I don't think you could even convince a significant percentage of them not to. Add in animals, and they certainly will continue to procreate until we find a way to sterilize all of them. So given that option A is for practical purposes impossible, isn't it logical to go with the second best option? And if having more children does in fact reduce overall suffering for the group, isn't having more kids the better thing at least until some method of killing all life is devised?

So if it could be proved that more life leads to less suffering for the group as a whole, wouldn't your morality require you to support natalism? It seems rather irrational to support a solution that is impossible, while ignoring a solution that is possible and would be better than partial success of the impossible solution.   

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:I'm just

mellestad wrote:

I'm just trying to follow the chain of logic that begins with suffering being bad and basing your morality on that. I think it gets complex because the answer really is simple, and it really is to kill yourself.

Oh thank you sensei, how could I have not seen it!? if every AN in the past had just killed themselves immediately upon realizing procreation is wrong, well then clearly Fritzl would not have had a daughter to lock in a dungeon and rape. You really are thick if you can't get why your argument is shit.

Quote:
But people don't want to kill themselves, so there is a lot of ethical hand-wringing to justify why the obvious course isn't taken. I grant that you could also justify trying to destroy existing life, and that's another inconsistency...a shooting spree ending in suicide would be a simple way to get an ethical win.

I can't believe I have to explain this to a supposedly intelligent atheist: ethics says NOTHING, ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY NADA, ZIP, NOT A GODDAMN THING ABOUT WHAT TO DO TO YOURSELF. ETHICS IS ABOUT HOW WE TREAT OTHERS. by this fact alone your "kill urself lulz" objection is retarded. It really doesn't matter at all how much my life sucks and how good a reason I have to kill myself and whether I do it or not, this has nothing to do with whether or not you have the right to create new people.

Quote:
I just don't think they are being consistent with their starting premise and following where that premise leads.

Show me the ideological inconsistency, beyond your silly suicide objection, please. 

Quote:
You can get out of that "trap" by putting some value on non-suffering life, or "happy" life, but then the equations come in. A good example of how confusing this is to Menageri is in this thread. This: 

X = possible good life (+) good
X = possible bad life (-) bad
NX = no possible good life (-) neutral
NX = no possible bad life (+) good 

Was brought up, and Menageri thought it was an accurate way to put forth the ethics of AN. If it is such an ethically binary choice, then I think you end up and killing yourself or possibly trying to kill others. The practical reality of having no success spreading the AN message precludes your other options. As I mentioned earlier, the chances that Menageri is going to convince anyone to follow his ethical system is grim, easily outweighed by the suffering he will experience and cause within his remaining life.

If someone is dying of cancer and in huge amounts of pain, it's perfectly rational to say it would propably be better if they were already dead. That person being a human being however, has the capacity to make that decision for himself, and therefore if he would rather die naturally then I don't see much of an ethical obligation to intervene in that process as quite obviously he can judge the value of his own life to himself far better than I can do it for him. This is entirely different from animals, who do not have the option of killing themselves or being euthanized on request, so we have to make these decisions for them by using our best judgement to try and figure out how shitty their life will be and whether it should be ended.

Your claim that AN can't be spread is based on absolutely nothing, and even if it were true it does nothing to prove it wrong. "It's not gonna be popular" is not a philosophical argument.

Quote:
The thing is, it isn't such a binary ethical system, that doesn't make sense if you are weighing the choice. You'd actually need to put it like this: 

x = possible good in a life 1-100

x = possible bad in life -(1-100)

x = non existence 0

Then you have to do the math, and it would be complex.

No we really don't need to do it that way, the asymmetry argument explains this.

Quote:
How much weight does the suffering/happiness of a cat get? How about a cow? A lobster? A person? A bacteria? A tree?

Yeah let's talk about the welfare of trees...

Seriously? Are you fucking serious? They have nothing whatsoever that could possibly grant them conciousness according to everything we know about physiology, so why the hell would we talk about trees in a discussion about ethics?

Quote:
Is it possible to make an objective metric of subjective experience?

In theory, I'd say of course it is. I can say with zero doubt that dropping an anvil on my foot feels worse than having a cat scratch me a little, and if we were to monitor everything going on in my brain when those things happen, we would know exactly what those sensations look like as functions of my brain. Our brains are entirely materialistic so how could it NOT be the case that if we had a perfect understanding of everything that goes on in there that we wouldn't be able to compare different sensations and make objective assessments about them, and then compare that to what's going on in other brains?

Quote:
Tons of questions. If you went through that exercise and arrived at AN, at least you'd have something to debate. I don't see the converstation even making it that far. The actual equation that seems to be used by AN is: 

x = suffering in life = bad

x = non existence = not bad

Therefore, it is immoral to cause life.

No, you strawmanning daffodil, I've clearly presented the asymmetry argument on numerous occasions and it explicitly deals with pleasure, so lie and evade some more. Then again that's all the vast majority of AN's opponents do so I shouldn't be the least bit surprised.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:The

Beyond Saving wrote:

The group does in fact exist and short of you coming up with some way to exterminate every living human quickly, the group is going to continue to exist.

This is not an argument. I'm perfectly aware we in fact exist and that assholes will keep playing the game with other people's currency if no one stops em.

Quote:
So even if you assume that the best possible option would be non-existence for everyone, any rational person can see that option isn't viable.

It's not viable from my desk at the moment but it could be a very simple feat some time in the future.

Quote:
People will continue to have children and you are never going to convince 100% of them not to.

I don't need to, every corked uterus makes a difference, and we don't need a 100% concensus even for the endgame. We still today do not have 100% of the population against enslaving blacks but that doesn't stop us from telling that asshole minority to go fuck themselves.

Quote:
I don't think you could even convince a significant percentage of them not to. Add in animals, and they certainly will continue to procreate until we find a way to sterilize all of them. So given that option A is for practical purposes impossible, isn't it logical to go with the second best option?

We don't need to sterilize animals, killing them would do just fine. I'd even prefer an instantenous annihilation for them, I mean why the fuck would I want more critters getting their insides liquefied by spiders and all that other nasty shit that goes on out there to continue one second longer than necessary?

Quote:
And if having more children does in fact reduce overall suffering for the group, isn't having more kids the better thing at least until some method of killing all life is devised? So if it could be proved that more life leads to less suffering for the group as a whole, wouldn't your morality require you to support natalism? It seems rather irrational to support a solution that is impossible, while ignoring a solution that is possible and would be better than partial success of the impossible solution.

Well I explained in my last response to Mosquito why the "overall suffering" is not the way to approach this, but if you can show me proof that more people in the short run is somehow really awesome then that could be justifiable, but only as a band-aid solution to something as extinction is still the ultimate goal. Obviously I don't believe it to be the case that more people does anything to make things better, quite the opposite.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Menageri:No, it wouldn't

@Menageri:

No, it wouldn't have helped with Fritzl, but neither does your existence. Suffering is suffering, you suffer, suffering is bad, non-existence is good, if you cease to exist your suffering stops, so, stop existing.

 

It is interesting to hear that ethics has nothing to do with self action. That's pretty interesting. So suffering is only bad when other people suffer? Is that actually what you are saying? Because if so....

 

The argument I, and others, have leveraged against spreading AN is the futility of it compared to the suffering you are causing by existing. Do you buy things? Ever? If so, you are contributing to the system that causes suffering. Suffering is bad, your life causes suffering, therefore your life is bad and you should end it. Again, this is what your argument leads to, if you are consistent with your starting premise.

 

I'm talking about the suffering of trees, because suffering is a subjective thing that is totally arbitrary. Why *not* talk about the suffering of trees?

 

I agree we could *probably* make an objective claim about pain, but how do we make one about suffering? Some people even like some suffering, like how suffering a bit in a sports game might make the end result more edifying. I'm not saying you couldn't do it, I'm just saying I don't see any effort to even try, and so I have a hard time taking the arguments I'm seeing from you seriously.

 

I understand asymmetry, and, again, I question the reliance on pure negativity. And, again, if you use asymmetry as your cornerstone, you are forced into self termination (unless you really think ethics only applies to what other people do, see above.) The only objective is to avoid harm. Pleasure has no intrinsic value, if it did, then we would argue (in AN theory) that if pleasure outweighs pain then life is good. That argument never happens. Why is suffering bad, but pleasure is "meh"?

 

That's like me saying, "Well, if I ate that piece of cake over there, it would be fantastic. That cake would be *SO GOOD*. But if I walked over to the cake, I might sprain my ankle! Therefore, I will not get the cake and instead I'll shoot myself in the face so I never experience suffering again. Before I shoot myself, I'll make sure I tell everyone I know that they should never have babies, because those babies might grow up and be put in my horrible predicament."

 

I do like being called a daffodil over a breedtard fuckface though, so maybe we're improving relations through dialog!

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:No, it

mellestad wrote:

No, it wouldn't have helped with Fritzl, but neither does your existence. Suffering is suffering, you suffer, suffering is bad, non-existence is good, if you cease to exist your suffering stops, so, stop existing.

You know what would have helped with the Fritzl case? Antinatalism. 

Quote:
It is interesting to hear that ethics has nothing to do with self action. That's pretty interesting. So suffering is only bad when other people suffer? Is that actually what you are saying? Because if so....

Is this why you don't quote anything, so your preposterous strawmen are harder to detect? Where did I say my suffering isn't bad? I said what I do to myself or what I choose to endure is not an ethical question, the only time ethics comes into play is when my actions affect others. Me poking myself with a needle does not affect anyone else and is therefore not relevant to ethics. 

Quote:
The argument I, and others, have leveraged against spreading AN is the futility of it compared to the suffering you are causing by existing. Do you buy things? Ever? If so, you are contributing to the system that causes suffering. Suffering is bad, your life causes suffering, therefore your life is bad and you should end it. Again, this is what your argument leads to, if you are consistent with your starting premise.

Well it's certainly fair to argue that my existence causes harm to others and in some ways I'm sure that's correct, but so does yours so if you make this argument then it affects you too. I'm perfectly willing to accept that mass suicide could in fact be an ethically productive thing to do (unlike you people who will seemingly defend life no matter how high the price is), but once again, that really has nothing to do with antinatalism.

I really don't see anything futile about spreading antinatalism, it is, as far as we ANs can tell, the best solution to the problem by far, and so it's worth a try even if there's a good chance it will never become a majority opinion, especially since it's possible it may not require anywhere near a majority to make extinction a reality with future technology. 

Quote:
I'm talking about the suffering of trees, because suffering is a subjective thing that is totally arbitrary. Why *not* talk about the suffering of trees?

Because, silly person, it's idiotic to talk about what a blind person sees because he has no eyesight, and it's equally idiotic to talk about a tree's suffering because it's not capable of feeling a goddamn thing. You know, arguing about this kind of idiotic bullshit really does nothing to boost your credibility as openminded and all that.

Quote:
I agree we could *probably* make an objective claim about pain, but how do we make one about suffering? Some people even like some suffering, like how suffering a bit in a sports game might make the end result more edifying. I'm not saying you couldn't do it, I'm just saying I don't see any effort to even try, and so I have a hard time taking the arguments I'm seeing from you seriously.

If you think someone can like suffering then you don't understand what suffering means. People may find certain types of pains preferable to the alternative sensations running through their conciousness at the time, but that does not mean that either of those sensations is good. It's like when people cut themselves they're trying to distract themselves from the emotional bullshit by forcing their conciousness to focus on the physical pain instead, but that does not mean they genuinely enjoy physical pain, it just means they use it to bring their level of suffering up from -10 to -5 or whatever, but a negative is still a negative.

As for the sports example, well let's say that the lower the welfare of the people goes, the higher the ultimate positive is when they win. Does that mean that the negative was actually good? I'd say clearly not, for if I could change the psychology of these people so that they can reach that exact same level of pleasure without first having to go through those negative sensations, obviously that would be better.

As for the personal shit, you don't know anything about my life, my psychology, or what I've tried to do to affect any of it, so go fuck a tree. 

Quote:
I understand asymmetry, and, again, I question the reliance on pure negativity. And, again, if you use asymmetry as your cornerstone, you are forced into self termination (unless you really think ethics only applies to what other people do, see above.) The only objective is to avoid harm. Pleasure has no intrinsic value, if it did, then we would argue (in AN theory) that if pleasure outweighs pain then life is good. That argument never happens. Why is suffering bad, but pleasure is "meh"?

Pleasure has value for sentient beings, but there is no reason whatsoever to reform nonsentient matter into a sentience just so they can then become dependant on pleasure. That is fucking idiotic, not much different from getting someone addicted to cigarettes just so they can then satisfy their nicotine addiction and feel good about doing it. The avoidance of suffering has value regardless of whether a sentience is there to appreciate it, this is obvious to everyone who understands why it's good that we now have anesthesia when we have to undergo surgery - it really is irrelevant that your conciousness is not awake to appreciate the fact you're not in gruesome pain when the surgeon slices you open. 

Quote:
That's like me saying, "Well, if I ate that piece of cake over there, it would be fantastic. That cake would be *SO GOOD*. But if I walked over to the cake, I might sprain my ankle! Therefore, I will not get the cake and instead I'll shoot myself in the face so I never experience suffering again. Before I shoot myself, I'll make sure I tell everyone I know that they should never have babies, because those babies might grow up and be put in my horrible predicament."

No, it's like saying there's absolutely no point in injecting you with the need to eat the cake when the path to it smells like shit and is covered in land mines and being targeted by snipers, and you're perfectly comfortable where you are atm, just lying on your sofa eating gummy bears and watching pokemon.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote: With that

mellestad wrote:

 

With that equation though, it is also immoral to live. To bring in any justification for why living is OK, you need something fancier, and that's where it goes off the rails for me.

 

Meh.

Here are the following rebuttals that most AN posters have replied with on the mention that they should commit suicide :

(I know user names are not revealing privacy, but in the interest of privacy, I'll AN poster rebuttal and then number them :

 

AN poster rebuttal number 1 to suicide argument :  "When someone asks me why I don't kill myself. I repeat the question back to them. I think repeating the question to them and waiting for THEIR answer should make them realise how egotist and unwelcoming THEY are"

AN poster rebuttal number 2 : "We don´t kill ouselves because it´s not easy - not only is most of the times painful, we have to jump a lot of psychological loopholes in order to do it. That´s why people only do it in occasions when pain in their lives outgrow any other minor benefits of existence. To say that we should automatically kill ourselves might seem logical, but it´s only childish. If it were easy we wouldn´t be in this situation."

AN poster rebuttal number 3 : if you are here, enjoy yourself and be productive. just prevent it from happening again

AN poster rebuttal number 4 : The argument is one huge non-sequitur. An analogy- a family has a large number of cats hanging around the house, strays, new litters that have been born there, etc. The youngest chid brings home yet another stray that he found playing in the woods. The mother chides him, "No, it was a mistake to bring that kitten here, we have too many cats taking up here as it is!" Does that overpopulation entail killing off the ones that are already there? No, not in itself. The same with bringing new life into the universe versus the life already here.

 AN poster rebuttal number 5 : I hate this "comeback." My whole point is that what difference does it make if I kill myself or wait til I die another way? Death is inevitable, and the whole point of anti-natalism is to prevent procreation. Duuuuuh.

And finally AN poster rebuttal number 6 (perhaps the lengthiest one) :  i dont take the suicide argument seriously cause it doesnt make sense. the problem is i was born. im aganist being born,so suicide doesnt solve my birth. i still sufferd,suicide prevents suffering from continuing,but it doesnt change the fact it happened. its almost as if pro natalists think suffering doesnt matter because you will die someday. this can be used to justify anything "i raped a women but its ok,she can always kill herself or wait till she gets sick and dies". really? so suffering doesnt matter because the dead dont remember there suffering? this is what pro natalists are saying. they will dismiss all the suffering createing new life will cause,because this new life can always kill itself if it wants. i wounder if they would say this to there own kids "if you suffer alot in life son it doesnt matter,if you go blind,get cancer etc it doesnt matter bcause you will die so who gives a shit". i dought they would say this to there own kids.

(There were quite a few more rebuttals to the posters that were telling the people to kill themselves. But I don't have time to sift through all of those comments. I just thought that I would put up the most common ones I saw and let the readers decide. I would post the link. However, these are several comments from various blogs, youtube vids (both anti and pro-natalist) and I just didn't think most people would want to read through all those comments. I just put these up here because they seemed to be the general rebuttals.

Again, maybe I am just playing devil's advocate. But, what would you have to say to these types of AN rebuttals ? )

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3193
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Well it's

Manageri wrote:

Well it's certainly fair to argue that my existence causes harm to others and in some ways I'm sure that's correct, but so does yours so if you make this argument then it affects you too. I'm perfectly willing to accept that mass suicide could in fact be an ethically productive thing to do (unlike you people who will seemingly defend life no matter how high the price is), but once again, that really has nothing to do with antinatalism.

Outside of a few people that mentioned a "pro-death" stance on abortion. (Seemingly a reference to Benatar's book :Better to have never been). I would agree that I have not browsed an AN sites that promote mass killings or mass suicide.

I'd say this one video that I found on youtube from Colombia sums up the AN position :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9lXcgJ6s1g

(It's only 1:48 minutes long, but it is pretty blunt and doesn't mince words).

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

mellestad wrote:

 

With that equation though, it is also immoral to live. To bring in any justification for why living is OK, you need something fancier, and that's where it goes off the rails for me.

 

Meh.

Here are the following rebuttals that most AN posters have replied with on the mention that they should commit suicide :

(I know user names are not revealing privacy, but in the interest of privacy, I'll AN poster rebuttal and then number them :

 

AN poster rebuttal number 1 to suicide argument :  "When someone asks me why I don't kill myself. I repeat the question back to them. I think repeating the question to them and waiting for THEIR answer should make them realise how egotist and unwelcoming THEY are"

AN poster rebuttal number 2 : "We don´t kill ouselves because it´s not easy - not only is most of the times painful, we have to jump a lot of psychological loopholes in order to do it. That´s why people only do it in occasions when pain in their lives outgrow any other minor benefits of existence. To say that we should automatically kill ourselves might seem logical, but it´s only childish. If it were easy we wouldn´t be in this situation."

AN poster rebuttal number 3 : if you are here, enjoy yourself and be productive. just prevent it from happening again

AN poster rebuttal number 4 : The argument is one huge non-sequitur. An analogy- a family has a large number of cats hanging around the house, strays, new litters that have been born there, etc. The youngest chid brings home yet another stray that he found playing in the woods. The mother chides him, "No, it was a mistake to bring that kitten here, we have too many cats taking up here as it is!" Does that overpopulation entail killing off the ones that are already there? No, not in itself. The same with bringing new life into the universe versus the life already here.

 AN poster rebuttal number 5 : I hate this "comeback." My whole point is that what difference does it make if I kill myself or wait til I die another way? Death is inevitable, and the whole point of anti-natalism is to prevent procreation. Duuuuuh.

And finally AN poster rebuttal number 6 (perhaps the lengthiest one) :  i dont take the suicide argument seriously cause it doesnt make sense. the problem is i was born. im aganist being born,so suicide doesnt solve my birth. i still sufferd,suicide prevents suffering from continuing,but it doesnt change the fact it happened. its almost as if pro natalists think suffering doesnt matter because you will die someday. this can be used to justify anything "i raped a women but its ok,she can always kill herself or wait till she gets sick and dies". really? so suffering doesnt matter because the dead dont remember there suffering? this is what pro natalists are saying. they will dismiss all the suffering createing new life will cause,because this new life can always kill itself if it wants. i wounder if they would say this to there own kids "if you suffer alot in life son it doesnt matter,if you go blind,get cancer etc it doesnt matter bcause you will die so who gives a shit". i dought they would say this to there own kids.

(There were quite a few more rebuttals to the posters that were telling the people to kill themselves. But I don't have time to sift through all of those comments. I just thought that I would put up the most common ones I saw and let the readers decide. I would post the link. However, these are several comments from various blogs, youtube vids (both anti and pro-natalist) and I just didn't think most people would want to read through all those comments. I just put these up here because they seemed to be the general rebuttals.

Again, maybe I am just playing devil's advocate. But, what would you have to say to these types of AN rebuttals ? )

 

Well, it's interesting because they obviously don't follow the same paths to arrive at their ethics. Some saying current life is OK, some say they would die if only it wasn't painful/scary, some say that suicide would be stupid, some dismiss the question out of hand and the last one is just a rant that doesn't have anything to do with the question.

 

Honestly, it makes me lean harder on the idea that AN isn't based on logic, it just seems like an emotional argument based on individual preference. Interestingly, I think Menageri has used most of these arguments, in sequence, in this very discussion.

 

So, if I were responding to these folks individually:

1. This is just a dodge. Interesting defense mechanism to a difficult moral question.

2. Excuses. The poster doesn't deny the logic of the argument, which is interesting.

3. I'd be interesting to hear the root cause of this persons AN stance, I couldn't really respond without more communication.

4. That overpopulation certainly could entail killing off the cats you already have. If the overpopulation is serious enough to cause harm to the whole group (ie, I didn't have enough food for them all) then I would kill some to keep the whole group from suffering through starvation and disease. And I'm not even an AN.

5. It matters if you live another day if that day is going to bring additional suffering. If suffering is such a big deal that you wish to exterminate all life in the universe (central point of AN) then how can you be so dismissive of the suffering your life will bring?

6. This doesn't even make sense. The case made about rape isn't even analogous, unless you assume that raping the woman has a decent chance of causing the rest of her life to be happier than it otherwise would have been. Probably not so. This also has the same thing pop up, where the only thing valued is suffering. The potential happiness of new life is dismissed as meaningless (even if they say it isn't so, that's what their ethics actually does).

 

I'm with you though, this is interesting. I didn't have any idea it existed before this conversation either.

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


mellestad
Moderator
Posts: 2927
Joined: 2009-08-19
User is offlineOffline
@Menageri:Lots of things

@Menageri:

Lots of things would have helped the Fritzl case. Every one of them is more likely to be effective too.

 

Now you are straw manning my perceived straw man. You didn't say your suffering wasn't bad. What you choose to endure or not endure is certainly an ethical question, what else would you possibly call it? Dismissing your own suffering as not being worth ethical concern is fascinating though, I'll have to think about that! And I don't quote because I don't feel it's worth the effort. I'm already eating into time I should be spending studying.

 

So, what you are arguing here, is that the harm that will *certainly* result by your continued existence is OK because there is a teensy chance someone will read your posts or talk to you and be convinced to convert to AN? How do you do the math? Is that your main reason for avoiding self termination?

 

Hey, I'm so open-minded that I'm willing to talk about plant based suffering, you're so closed minded that you're avoiding it Sticking out tongue

 

I think I understand what suffering means, I'm trying to figure out why that's all you value, ethically. You can't change human psychology, so I don't know how that's relevant. It is what it is, and suffering is part of being alive. Why focus on that so much that you're willing to annihilate all sentient life in the universe?

And if I fucked a tree I'd hurt myself, and who knows, maybe even the tree! That's not very ethical of you to suggest.

 

Excellent! Cigarettes! If cigarettes caused more happiness than pain, I think you could make an ethical case for inflicting their addiction on someone. We do this all the time in society. We do this constantly. That's what social groups do to young.

I agree, anesthesia is great. Letting the patient die under anesthesia while they are under so they won't have to go through rehab after surgery is morally indefensible. That's what AN is. After all, why should the surgeon let the patient wake up? Especially if they don't have a family, or anyone that would suffer by their death...just let them slip away, right? Better that then they wake up and keep on suffering through life.

 

Your last thing, well, not quite. You're equating the couch with a positive. The couch is a neutral, there are no gummy bears, there isn't anything, not even poor quality anime. It's like bringing a person in a coma out of the coma so they can go on to live a healthy, happy life and die content with what they've experienced in life. It isn't like that, it is that.

 

 

Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
mellestad

mellestad wrote:

@Menageri:

Lots of things would have helped the Fritzl case. Every one of them is more likely to be effective too.

Lol, there's literally nothing more effective at preventing being raped than not existing. 

Quote:
Now you are straw manning my perceived straw man. You didn't say your suffering wasn't bad. What you choose to endure or not endure is certainly an ethical question, what else would you possibly call it? Dismissing your own suffering as not being worth ethical concern is fascinating though, I'll have to think about that!

Really, so if I'm the only sentient being that will ever exist in the universe, there are still somehow ethical questions for me to consider (as a practical matter that is)? I think not. What would I call it? Selfish preference I guess, who really cares though.

Quote:
And I don't quote because I don't feel it's worth the effort. I'm already eating into time I should be spending studying.

Well if you did a proper job just once rather than these constant silly drive bys, I'm pretty sure we'd be light years further into the subject. 

Quote:
So, what you are arguing here, is that the harm that will *certainly* result by your continued existence is OK because there is a teensy chance someone will read your posts or talk to you and be convinced to convert to AN? How do you do the math? Is that your main reason for avoiding self termination?

As I already explained, I can do whatever the fuck I want with my existence, and I don't have to defend it ethically because what a sentient does to itself is outside the realm of ethics. What IS in the realm of ethics is whether or not you get to impose that certain harm on someone else, not complicated. 

Quote:
Hey, I'm so open-minded that I'm willing to talk about plant based suffering, you're so closed minded that you're avoiding it :P

What you are is ignorant if you consider that a serious subject. 

Quote:
I think I understand what suffering means, I'm trying to figure out why that's all you value, ethically.

Really? So once again you're just gonna sweep all the times I've talked about pleasure under the rug? You're just gonna pretend the asymmetry argument doesn't exist? Pathetic.

Quote:
You can't change human psychology, so I don't know how that's relevant.

It's a fucking thought experiment, and those have no need to be realistic in every single way to be worthwhile. Of course you know all this, you just once again found a convenient trap door to escape through rather than address the point with any integrity.

Quote:
It is what it is, and suffering is part of being alive.

Well then we clearly have to accept it, don't we. Rape just is what it is and since it's a part of human sexuality we can't possibly judge it and take action against it. IOW, naturalistic fallacy, lol@u.

Quote:
Why focus on that so much that you're willing to annihilate all sentient life in the universe?

Lol, you ask me why I'd eradicate life while I'm making an argument why I'd eradicate life, priceless. 

Quote:
Excellent! Cigarettes! If cigarettes caused more happiness than pain, I think you could make an ethical case for inflicting their addiction on someone.

Make the case then, have the balls to back your assertion up. How the fuck do you justify imposing risk on someone else who's perfectly capable of rationally making that decision for themselves, just because you find the activity to be worth it? Do I get to go to Vegas with all your money and gamble it without your permission if there's a 51% chance I'll win? This is preposterous.

Quote:
We do this all the time in society. We do this constantly. That's what social groups do to young.

If you physically force someone to smoke you're breaking the law, and more importantly you're a preposterous cunt.

Quote:
I agree, anesthesia is great. Letting the patient die under anesthesia while they are under so they won't have to go through rehab after surgery is morally indefensible. That's what AN is. After all, why should the surgeon let the patient wake up? Especially if they don't have a family, or anyone that would suffer by their death...just let them slip away, right? Better that then they wake up and keep on suffering through life.

Letting a patient die would not harm the patient. It would be against their wishes in most cases but it would not actually harm them. The reason however that this is not analogous to the subject of AN is because we can ask an existing person if they'd like to wake up from their anesthesia, and therefore we are not imposing our judgement on them when we wake them up.

When you 'wake up' a new person, you are imposing your personal opinion that life is worth it on them, while ignoring the fact it comes with insanely high risks and that you are not doing them any kind of favor because they were in no need whatsoever to be brought into this shithole. 

Quote:
Your last thing, well, not quite. You're equating the couch with a positive. The couch is a neutral, there are no gummy bears, there isn't anything, not even poor quality anime. It's like bringing a person in a coma out of the coma so they can go on to live a healthy, happy life and die content with what they've experienced in life. It isn't like that, it is that.

No, I'm equating the couch with not being in need (which is a kickass state to be in if you really think about it). I'll grant the way I phrased it was not very good though.


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
mellestad wrote:Well, it's

mellestad wrote:

Well, it's interesting because they obviously don't follow the same paths to arrive at their ethics. Some saying current life is OK, some say they would die if only it wasn't painful/scary, some say that suicide would be stupid, some dismiss the question out of hand and the last one is just a rant that doesn't have anything to do with the question. 

Honestly, it makes me lean harder on the idea that AN isn't based on logic, it just seems like an emotional argument based on individual preference. Interestingly, I think Menageri has used most of these arguments, in sequence, in this very discussion.

Right, so if three people give you different reasons why it's a bad idea to throw the butter knife throught the window you'll conclude they're all full of shit? If one says repairing the window will cost money, one says he needs the knife to scratch his back, and one says you might hit the bear behind the window and make it maul the shit out of you all like a PMSing barbarian, then clearly it's a good idea for you to throw the knife? Yeah, we're the ones with shitty logic here, clearly. I might respond to the rest of this later if I find something worthwhile I haven't covered yet, but I have a hangover that needs fixing atm.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Quote:AN poster rebuttal

Quote:

AN poster rebuttal number 1 to suicide argument :  "When someone asks me why I don't kill myself. I repeat the question back to them. I think repeating the question to them and waiting for THEIR answer should make them realise how egotist and unwelcoming THEY are"

Because I'm not the one who believes the world would be better off without me, I would say it would be slightly worse without me. Does that make me egotist?

 

Quote:
 

AN poster rebuttal number 2 : "We don´t kill ouselves because it´s not easy - not only is most of the times painful, we have to jump a lot of psychological loopholes in order to do it. That´s why people only do it in occasions when pain in their lives outgrow any other minor benefits of existence. To say that we should automatically kill ourselves might seem logical, but it´s only childish. If it were easy we wouldn´t be in this situation."

Absurd, killing yourself is easy, fucking teenagers can figure it out all the time I'm sure you can too. I wouldn't let a little bit of pain stop me from doing something I believed was moral.

 

Quote:

AN poster rebuttal number 3 : if you are here, enjoy yourself and be productive. just prevent it from happening again

And deprive others from enjoying themselves and being productive?

 

Quote:

AN poster rebuttal number 4 : The argument is one huge non-sequitur. An analogy- a family has a large number of cats hanging around the house, strays, new litters that have been born there, etc. The youngest chid brings home yet another stray that he found playing in the woods. The mother chides him, "No, it was a mistake to bring that kitten here, we have too many cats taking up here as it is!" Does that overpopulation entail killing off the ones that are already there? No, not in itself. The same with bringing new life into the universe versus the life already here.

Does it matter which cat you kill? If you have 20 cats and the new one that crosses the line is number 21, does it matter whether you kill cat 21 or cat 9? No. In either case you are down to 20 cats and resolved the situation. So if you kill yourself you are making a step towards resolving the problem you claim exists. 

 

Quote:

AN poster rebuttal number 5 : I hate this "comeback." My whole point is that what difference does it make if I kill myself or wait til I die another way? Death is inevitable, and the whole point of anti-natalism is to prevent procreation. Duuuuuh.

Does life make a difference or not? You are the one arguing that it makes a negative difference. It is internally inconsistent to argue that life is bad but it doesn't matter how long you live. Bad for a long time is worse than bad for a short time. 

 

Quote:

And finally AN poster rebuttal number 6 (perhaps the lengthiest one) :  i dont take the suicide argument seriously cause it doesnt make sense. the problem is i was born. im aganist being born,so suicide doesnt solve my birth. i still sufferd,suicide prevents suffering from continuing,but it doesnt change the fact it happened. its almost as if pro natalists think suffering doesnt matter because you will die someday. this can be used to justify anything "i raped a women but its ok,she can always kill herself or wait till she gets sick and dies". really? so suffering doesnt matter because the dead dont remember there suffering? this is what pro natalists are saying. they will dismiss all the suffering createing new life will cause,because this new life can always kill itself if it wants. i wounder if they would say this to there own kids "if you suffer alot in life son it doesnt matter,if you go blind,get cancer etc it doesnt matter bcause you will die so who gives a shit". i dought they would say this to there own kids.

I would argue that suffering doesn't matter as much as you say it does. But if suffering is as terrible as you claim, wouldn't preventing future suffering be a good thing? And you are guaranteed to suffer more in the future if you continue to live, right? So how is suicide not a sensible solution? It can't fix any suffering you have already experienced, but it will prevent any suffering in the future. 

 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:As I already

Manageri wrote:

As I already explained, I can do whatever the fuck I want with my existence, and I don't have to defend it ethically because what a sentient does to itself is outside the realm of ethics. What IS in the realm of ethics is whether or not you get to impose that certain harm on someone else, not complicated. 

Your whole argument rests on any persons existence being harmful to others. You exist, you are causing harm to others (directly or indirectly) and every day you exist you are causing greater suffering to other people and/or animals. But even if you are somehow living a perfect life without causing suffering to even an ant, there is the (admittedly remote) chance you will get laid some day and she will get pregnant, refuse to have an abortion and *gasp* you will be responsible for bringing a life into this terrible world. Isn't it selfish of you to take that risk? Even if the odds are a billion to one?  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Quote:AN

Beyond Saving wrote:

Quote:

AN poster rebuttal number 1 to suicide argument :  "When someone asks me why I don't kill myself. I repeat the question back to them. I think repeating the question to them and waiting for THEIR answer should make them realise how egotist and unwelcoming THEY are"

Because I'm not the one who believes the world would be better off without me, I would say it would be slightly worse without me. Does that make me egotist?

It makes you delusional or a comedian when you claim the world is better off with you while you pay people to torture thousands of animals during your life. 

Quote:
Quote:
 AN poster rebuttal number 2 : "We don´t kill ouselves because it´s not easy - not only is most of the times painful, we have to jump a lot of psychological loopholes in order to do it. That´s why people only do it in occasions when pain in their lives outgrow any other minor benefits of existence. To say that we should automatically kill ourselves might seem logical, but it´s only childish. If it were easy we wouldn´t be in this situation."

Absurd, killing yourself is easy, fucking teenagers can figure it out all the time I'm sure you can too. I wouldn't let a little bit of pain stop me from doing something I believed was moral.

Yeah, everyone just decides they're doing it and that's it. No one like, I dunno, stands at the ledge for kind of a long time because your psychology will naturally do it's best to scare the shit out of you when you think about killing yourself? This really is a disgusting turd to throw in the faces of people stuck between disgusting, shitty lives and their fear of death (plus all the rational fear of the consequences of potential failure) so fuck you for that. You can't even put your fucking hamburger down and you're gonna lecture us about how easy it is to do propably the most naturally terrifying thing there is? Yeah, you really are a fucking comedian.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 It seems to me that the

 It seems to me that the only rational arguments an AN can make for not committing suicide are

#1 My life isn't bad, but if a new person is born there is x% chance that they will experience tremendous suffering, so me killing myself doesn't improve anything but having a kid could potentially cause significant harm so it is immoral to take that risk. Kind of like it would be immoral to put a single bullet in a revolver, spin it, point at a person and pull the trigger. The fact that most of the time nothing bad will happen does not mitigate the potential damage done if the bullet fires.

 

#2 All I have to do is convince two people in my lifetime that AN is the way to go. If I can prevent two new lives from being born, I am making up for the suffering caused by my one life. I am making the sacrifice of my own suffering for the benefit of humanity as a whole.

 

#3 I like myself, I just don't like other people. (Obviously doesn't mesh with our local AN's argument against subjectivity, but I'm sure AN can be arrived at through a subjective argument.)

 

#4 I'm a wimp and too cowardly to kill myself even though I know it would be the moral thing to do.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Manageri
atheist
Manageri's picture
Posts: 392
Joined: 2009-05-09
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Your

Beyond Saving wrote:
Your whole argument rests on any persons existence being harmful to others. You exist, you are causing harm to others (directly or indirectly) and every day you exist you are causing greater suffering to other people and/or animals. But even if you are somehow living a perfect life without causing suffering to even an ant, there is the (admittedly remote) chance you will get laid some day and she will get pregnant, refuse to have an abortion and *gasp* you will be responsible for bringing a life into this terrible world. Isn't it selfish of you to take that risk? Even if the odds are a billion to one?  

Even if you could demonstrate this grave harm I'm constantly imposing, it really wouldn't make your or anyone else's selfish assholery any more acceptable, so this is nothing but you complaining that since other people got away with it before, we can't convict you of the same crime.


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:It makes you

Manageri wrote:

It makes you delusional or a comedian when you claim the world is better off with you while you pay people to torture thousands of animals during your life. 

Excuse me, "pay people" to torture animals? I do it myself fuckwad. At least for the most part, I do occasionally order food at restaurants, but everything in my freezer I killed myself. I don't eat that low quality shit in the grocery store. But yes, I do believe the world is a slightly more pleasant place to live with me in it than it would be without me. Not a better place for a tasty little pig or lamb but a better place for many people.

 

Manageri wrote:

Quote:
 AN poster rebuttal number 2 : "We don´t kill ouselves because it´s not easy - not only is most of the times painful, we have to jump a lot of psychological loopholes in order to do it. That´s why people only do it in occasions when pain in their lives outgrow any other minor benefits of existence. To say that we should automatically kill ourselves might seem logical, but it´s only childish. If it were easy we wouldn´t be in this situation."

Quote:

Absurd, killing yourself is easy, fucking teenagers can figure it out all the time I'm sure you can too. I wouldn't let a little bit of pain stop me from doing something I believed was moral.

Yeah, everyone just decides they're doing it and that's it. No one like, I dunno, stands at the ledge for kind of a long time because your psychology will naturally do it's best to scare the shit out of you when you think about killing yourself? This really is a disgusting turd to throw in the faces of people stuck between disgusting, shitty lives and their fear of death (plus all the rational fear of the consequences of potential failure) so fuck you for that. You can't even put your fucking hamburger down and you're gonna lecture us about how easy it is to do propably the most naturally terrifying thing there is? Yeah, you really are a fucking comedian.

I don't think there would be any moral value to putting my hamburger down. If you could convince me there was, I would. If the only reason you don't kill yourself is fear of death and pain you are a coward. It would be like me being outside a burning building and knowing a kid was in there and deciding not to go in and try to save the kid because I was afraid of getting burnt or dying. If you sit there and listen to the kid scream as they burn alive you are a fucking coward. 

The pain is easy to get around. Go out and buy yourself a gram of heroin, the price will be $300-$400 and shoot all of it at once (usually 75-400 mg is considered lethal). You will die and not only will you not have pain, you will probably enjoy it. If somehow you have superhuman immunity to opiates and a gram doesn't do the trick, you don't have terrible side effects like if you somehow survive the jump and become paralyzed. The worst part will be the withdrawal effects which can easily be solved by buying two grams and trying again. If you take enough of the shit, you will die. 

All you have to do is get around your psychology, as someone who has knowingly risked my life to do what I believed was the right thing it isn't that hard to get around.  

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4277
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Manageri wrote:Beyond Saving

Manageri wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:
Your whole argument rests on any persons existence being harmful to others. You exist, you are causing harm to others (directly or indirectly) and every day you exist you are causing greater suffering to other people and/or animals. But even if you are somehow living a perfect life without causing suffering to even an ant, there is the (admittedly remote) chance you will get laid some day and she will get pregnant, refuse to have an abortion and *gasp* you will be responsible for bringing a life into this terrible world. Isn't it selfish of you to take that risk? Even if the odds are a billion to one?  

Even if you could demonstrate this grave harm I'm constantly imposing, it really wouldn't make your or anyone else's selfish assholery any more acceptable, so this is nothing but you complaining that since other people got away with it before, we can't convict you of the same crime.

I don't believe you are imposing grave harm, you are the one arguing that. Maybe it doesn't make my selfish assholery more acceptable, but just because I am a selfish asshole by your metric, how does that excuse you being a selfish asshole?

I am not the one complaining about other people existing, I don't care one way or the other and I don't consider their existence a negative. You are the one complaining about it and apparently the only reason you continue to exist and cause suffering is because other people do it too. You are being immoral by your own standard simply because others are? 

It was morality that burned the books of the ancient sages, and morality that halted the free inquiry of the Golden Age and substituted for it the credulous imbecility of the Age of Faith. It was a fixed moral code and a fixed theology which robbed the human race of a thousand years by wasting them upon alchemy, heretic-burning, witchcraft and sacerdotalism.-H.L. Mencken