Total Posts:31|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What are your thoughts on Anti-natalism?

Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/16/2014 8:24:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Any thoughts, positive or negative, are welcomed.
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 8:42:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:24:15 PM, Caploxion wrote:
Any thoughts, positive or negative, are welcomed.

There was a very long and IMHO interesting thread on a similar topic...basically, if you take an anti-natalist position, what makes suicide morally wrong?

http://www.debate.org...

This was my favorite comment from the thread, one that probably expresses my own opinions on the topic far better than my subsequent treatises and dialogues, lol:

At 12/26/2013 3:59:53 AM, rross wrote:
At 12/21/2013 9:10:09 PM, sdavio wrote:

But we all die anyway, and then we're dead forever. Being alive is just this temporary, amazing phenomenon. Of course we prefer pleasure to pain, but I don't see how lack of pleasure has any meaning in terms of the validity, so to speak, of life.

To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/22/2014 10:29:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 8:42:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:24:15 PM, Caploxion wrote:
Any thoughts, positive or negative, are welcomed.

There was a very long and IMHO interesting thread on a similar topic...basically, if you take an anti-natalist position, what makes suicide morally wrong?

http://www.debate.org...

This was my favorite comment from the thread, one that probably expresses my own opinions on the topic far better than my subsequent treatises and dialogues, lol:

At 12/26/2013 3:59:53 AM, rross wrote:
At 12/21/2013 9:10:09 PM, sdavio wrote:

But we all die anyway, and then we're dead forever. Being alive is just this temporary, amazing phenomenon. Of course we prefer pleasure to pain, but I don't see how lack of pleasure has any meaning in terms of the validity, so to speak, of life.

But isn't that the function of humans?- to seek pleasure? Sure, not everyone is doing it the same way, but we're all doing it. Could you not then say that pleasure has value (at least inter-subjectively)?


To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 2:41:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/22/2014 10:29:09 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/22/2014 8:42:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:24:15 PM, Caploxion wrote:
Any thoughts, positive or negative, are welcomed.

There was a very long and IMHO interesting thread on a similar topic...basically, if you take an anti-natalist position, what makes suicide morally wrong?

http://www.debate.org...

This was my favorite comment from the thread, one that probably expresses my own opinions on the topic far better than my subsequent treatises and dialogues, lol:

At 12/26/2013 3:59:53 AM, rross wrote:
At 12/21/2013 9:10:09 PM, sdavio wrote:

But we all die anyway, and then we're dead forever. Being alive is just this temporary, amazing phenomenon. Of course we prefer pleasure to pain, but I don't see how lack of pleasure has any meaning in terms of the validity, so to speak, of life.

But isn't that the function of humans?- to seek pleasure? Sure, not everyone is doing it the same way, but we're all doing it. Could you not then say that pleasure has value (at least inter-subjectively)?

Our discussion subsequently segwayed into exactly what causes suicidal tendencies. Where the discussion has left off is at a consensus on the point that the moment in which you experience pleasure is not necessarily valuable on its own...that what may be much, much more important is the rate at which you accumulate pleasure. If this rate is positive, you will be optimistic, even if your circumstances can be described as anything but pleasurable.

This would elaborate upon and reconcile why pleasure would seem to not be important, yet as you point out is obviously very important. This would also describe why people who have all kinds of material comforts may end up committing suicide anyway - perhaps they were at imminent risk of losing them, or perhaps they saw the rate at which they were accumulating pleasure to be in a terminal nose-dive...perhaps this would explain depression and suicidal tendencies in people when they undergo retirement from a job that gave them pleasure.

To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

=)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 2:58:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 2:41:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:29:09 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/22/2014 8:42:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:24:15 PM, Caploxion wrote:
Any thoughts, positive or negative, are welcomed.

There was a very long and IMHO interesting thread on a similar topic...basically, if you take an anti-natalist position, what makes suicide morally wrong?

http://www.debate.org...

This was my favorite comment from the thread, one that probably expresses my own opinions on the topic far better than my subsequent treatises and dialogues, lol:

At 12/26/2013 3:59:53 AM, rross wrote:
At 12/21/2013 9:10:09 PM, sdavio wrote:

But we all die anyway, and then we're dead forever. Being alive is just this temporary, amazing phenomenon. Of course we prefer pleasure to pain, but I don't see how lack of pleasure has any meaning in terms of the validity, so to speak, of life.

But isn't that the function of humans?- to seek pleasure? Sure, not everyone is doing it the same way, but we're all doing it. Could you not then say that pleasure has value (at least inter-subjectively)?

Our discussion subsequently segwayed into exactly what causes suicidal tendencies. Where the discussion has left off is at a consensus on the point that the moment in which you experience pleasure is not necessarily valuable on its own...that what may be much, much more important is the rate at which you accumulate pleasure. If this rate is positive, you will be optimistic, even if your circumstances can be described as anything but pleasurable.

Really? So you could be living in absolute poverty, let's say an Indian slum wherein you worked virtually the whole day for next to nothing. But in that circumstance, you could be highly optimistic, if you saw that every 2 minutes you earned enough for a certain piece of fruit that you wanted? Even if the work is horrible? Is that what you're saying?


This would elaborate upon and reconcile why pleasure would seem to not be important, yet as you point out is obviously very important. This would also describe why people who have all kinds of material comforts may end up committing suicide anyway - perhaps they were at imminent risk of losing them, or perhaps they saw the rate at which they were accumulating pleasure to be in a terminal nose-dive...perhaps this would explain depression and suicidal tendencies in people when they undergo retirement from a job that gave them pleasure.

So (future) lessening of the rate in acquiring positives. From what I've heard, it's a 'I can't escape' or 'I can't go on' feeling. Maybe, I'd argue, it's that the negatives are the default, and the positives are the escape. So, you're not escaping with positives at a rate in which you're accustomed to, hence the feeling of suicide.

To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

But anti-natalists would extend from the mentally-ill to say that all humans suffer by being alive. This 'imagination' is such a strange point. Are you saying that our imagination can help us deal with reality, or escape it? It thinks it's only the former, but I'm not quite sure.


=)

;-)
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 3:14:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 2:58:55 AM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 2:41:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:29:09 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/22/2014 8:42:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:24:15 PM, Caploxion wrote:
Any thoughts, positive or negative, are welcomed.

There was a very long and IMHO interesting thread on a similar topic...basically, if you take an anti-natalist position, what makes suicide morally wrong?

http://www.debate.org...

This was my favorite comment from the thread, one that probably expresses my own opinions on the topic far better than my subsequent treatises and dialogues, lol:

At 12/26/2013 3:59:53 AM, rross wrote:
At 12/21/2013 9:10:09 PM, sdavio wrote:

But we all die anyway, and then we're dead forever. Being alive is just this temporary, amazing phenomenon. Of course we prefer pleasure to pain, but I don't see how lack of pleasure has any meaning in terms of the validity, so to speak, of life.

But isn't that the function of humans?- to seek pleasure? Sure, not everyone is doing it the same way, but we're all doing it. Could you not then say that pleasure has value (at least inter-subjectively)?

Our discussion subsequently segwayed into exactly what causes suicidal tendencies. Where the discussion has left off is at a consensus on the point that the moment in which you experience pleasure is not necessarily valuable on its own...that what may be much, much more important is the rate at which you accumulate pleasure. If this rate is positive, you will be optimistic, even if your circumstances can be described as anything but pleasurable.

Really? So you could be living in absolute poverty, let's say an Indian slum wherein you worked virtually the whole day for next to nothing. But in that circumstance, you could be highly optimistic, if you saw that every 2 minutes you earned enough for a certain piece of fruit that you wanted? Even if the work is horrible? Is that what you're saying?

If that person found working for that piece of fruit gave them "net pleasure" in a utilitarian calculus, then ceteris paribus, yes.

However, such a person would probably want more than just that, because that person would realize that s/he might have an accident that would preclude them from working, thereby causing a massive deceleration of pleasure (i.e. huge drop in rate) for that person. So, I would think that part of this person's optimism would probably take such things into consideration as well.

Regardless, the absolute poverty inherent in that person's situation would not necessarily cause the person to commit suicide or to even be pessimistic. It is the rate of pleasure accumulation that is far more important.

This would elaborate upon and reconcile why pleasure would seem to not be important, yet as you point out is obviously very important. This would also describe why people who have all kinds of material comforts may end up committing suicide anyway - perhaps they were at imminent risk of losing them, or perhaps they saw the rate at which they were accumulating pleasure to be in a terminal nose-dive...perhaps this would explain depression and suicidal tendencies in people when they undergo retirement from a job that gave them pleasure.

So (future) lessening of the rate in acquiring positives. From what I've heard, it's a 'I can't escape' or 'I can't go on' feeling. Maybe, I'd argue, it's that the negatives are the default, and the positives are the escape. So, you're not escaping with positives at a rate in which you're accustomed to, hence the feeling of suicide.

What you're describing here is a negative rate of pleasure accumulation, so I would say we're both in agreement and there's no point of disagreement. The question then simply becomes whether or not the person is actually experiencing a negative rate of pleasure accumulation.

I mean, in the end we all die so in one sense you're going to be eventually right even without suicide being taken into consideration. In another sense, people believe that procreation is what makes us immortal, so if we truly are immortal, then maybe death is the escape...?

To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

But anti-natalists would extend from the mentally-ill to say that all humans suffer by being alive. This 'imagination' is such a strange point. Are you saying that our imagination can help us deal with reality, or escape it? It thinks it's only the former, but I'm not quite sure.

I'm not sure why you focus on the word "escape". Without that focus, it would seem we're in agreement.

On the suffering by being alive, lol, such a Christian argument. I would then ask if you would still think this way if you did not believe in the concept of original sin.

=)

;-)

=D
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 3:18:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/16/2014 8:24:15 PM, Caploxion wrote:
Any thoughts, positive or negative, are welcomed.

My first thought was.........what the hell is anti natalism.

"Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism"
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 3:39:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 3:14:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 2:58:55 AM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 2:41:46 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/22/2014 10:29:09 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/22/2014 8:42:59 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/16/2014 8:24:15 PM, Caploxion wrote:
Any thoughts, positive or negative, are welcomed.

There was a very long and IMHO interesting thread on a similar topic...basically, if you take an anti-natalist position, what makes suicide morally wrong?

http://www.debate.org...

This was my favorite comment from the thread, one that probably expresses my own opinions on the topic far better than my subsequent treatises and dialogues, lol:

At 12/26/2013 3:59:53 AM, rross wrote:
At 12/21/2013 9:10:09 PM, sdavio wrote:

But we all die anyway, and then we're dead forever. Being alive is just this temporary, amazing phenomenon. Of course we prefer pleasure to pain, but I don't see how lack of pleasure has any meaning in terms of the validity, so to speak, of life.

But isn't that the function of humans?- to seek pleasure? Sure, not everyone is doing it the same way, but we're all doing it. Could you not then say that pleasure has value (at least inter-subjectively)?

Our discussion subsequently segwayed into exactly what causes suicidal tendencies. Where the discussion has left off is at a consensus on the point that the moment in which you experience pleasure is not necessarily valuable on its own...that what may be much, much more important is the rate at which you accumulate pleasure. If this rate is positive, you will be optimistic, even if your circumstances can be described as anything but pleasurable.

Really? So you could be living in absolute poverty, let's say an Indian slum wherein you worked virtually the whole day for next to nothing. But in that circumstance, you could be highly optimistic, if you saw that every 2 minutes you earned enough for a certain piece of fruit that you wanted? Even if the work is horrible? Is that what you're saying?

If that person found working for that piece of fruit gave them "net pleasure" in a utilitarian calculus, then ceteris paribus, yes.

However, such a person would probably want more than just that, because that person would realize that s/he might have an accident that would preclude them from working, thereby causing a massive deceleration of pleasure (i.e. huge drop in rate) for that person. So, I would think that part of this person's optimism would probably take such things into consideration as well.

Oh okay, I see what you're saying.


Regardless, the absolute poverty inherent in that person's situation would not necessarily cause the person to commit suicide or to even be pessimistic. It is the rate of pleasure accumulation that is far more important.

Yes, that's what I got from what you said.


This would elaborate upon and reconcile why pleasure would seem to not be important, yet as you point out is obviously very important. This would also describe why people who have all kinds of material comforts may end up committing suicide anyway - perhaps they were at imminent risk of losing them, or perhaps they saw the rate at which they were accumulating pleasure to be in a terminal nose-dive...perhaps this would explain depression and suicidal tendencies in people when they undergo retirement from a job that gave them pleasure.

So (future) lessening of the rate in acquiring positives. From what I've heard, it's a 'I can't escape' or 'I can't go on' feeling. Maybe, I'd argue, it's that the negatives are the default, and the positives are the escape. So, you're not escaping with positives at a rate in which you're accustomed to, hence the feeling of suicide.

What you're describing here is a negative rate of pleasure accumulation, so I would say we're both in agreement and there's no point of disagreement. The question then simply becomes whether or not the person is actually experiencing a negative rate of pleasure accumulation.

I mean, in the end we all die so in one sense you're going to be eventually right even without suicide being taken into consideration. In another sense, people believe that procreation is what makes us immortal, so if we truly are immortal, then maybe death is the escape...?

Ergh, I don't like that poetic phrase (procreation makes us immortal), because it's just that: a poetic phrase. But yes, death would be the escape.


To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

But anti-natalists would extend from the mentally-ill to say that all humans suffer by being alive. This 'imagination' is such a strange point. Are you saying that our imagination can help us deal with reality, or escape it? It thinks it's only the former, but I'm not quite sure.

I'm not sure why you focus on the word "escape". Without that focus, it would seem we're in agreement.

I think that being alive is, fundamentally, like being in a maze that has no end.


On the suffering by being alive, lol, such a Christian argument. I would then ask if you would still think this way if you did not believe in the concept of original sin.

Whoah, nowadays, I'm anything but a Christian. I basically argue against procreation and I would condone suicide in a lot of cases. I don't think you'd ever mistake me for being a Christian if you consider those two things.

My foundations for the argument of 'life being suffering' are not the Bible, but rather critical thoughts (or at least attempting to be critical in thought).


=)

;-)

=D

XD
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 11:22:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 3:39:25 AM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 3:14:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

This would elaborate upon and reconcile why pleasure would seem to not be important, yet as you point out is obviously very important. This would also describe why people who have all kinds of material comforts may end up committing suicide anyway - perhaps they were at imminent risk of losing them, or perhaps they saw the rate at which they were accumulating pleasure to be in a terminal nose-dive...perhaps this would explain depression and suicidal tendencies in people when they undergo retirement from a job that gave them pleasure.

So (future) lessening of the rate in acquiring positives. From what I've heard, it's a 'I can't escape' or 'I can't go on' feeling. Maybe, I'd argue, it's that the negatives are the default, and the positives are the escape. So, you're not escaping with positives at a rate in which you're accustomed to, hence the feeling of suicide.

What you're describing here is a negative rate of pleasure accumulation, so I would say we're both in agreement and there's no point of disagreement. The question then simply becomes whether or not the person is actually experiencing a negative rate of pleasure accumulation.

I mean, in the end we all die so in one sense you're going to be eventually right even without suicide being taken into consideration. In another sense, people believe that procreation is what makes us immortal, so if we truly are immortal, then maybe death is the escape...?

Ergh, I don't like that poetic phrase (procreation makes us immortal), because it's just that: a poetic phrase. But yes, death would be the escape.

lol, IMHO "escape" in general when applied to this topic is quite poetic, yes? =)

To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

But anti-natalists would extend from the mentally-ill to say that all humans suffer by being alive. This 'imagination' is such a strange point. Are you saying that our imagination can help us deal with reality, or escape it? It thinks it's only the former, but I'm not quite sure.

I'm not sure why you focus on the word "escape". Without that focus, it would seem we're in agreement.

I think that being alive is, fundamentally, like being in a maze that has no end.

That's one way to look at it...that life is a puzzle meant to be solved. I think if you look at it that way you're going to get frustrated. That was also something I realized in that thread (what a thread, lol!)...that life is inconclusive, whereas death is quite conclusive.

That doesn't stop us from trying to figure it out though. I don't know what to make of that.

On the suffering by being alive, lol, such a Christian argument. I would then ask if you would still think this way if you did not believe in the concept of original sin.

Whoah, nowadays, I'm anything but a Christian. I basically argue against procreation and I would condone suicide in a lot of cases. I don't think you'd ever mistake me for being a Christian if you consider those two things.

Something I've noticed about Christianity is that it permeates everything...EVERYTHING. The footprint is unmistakable.

For example, Buddhists also talk about suffering and the need to ameliorate it, but they don't put it in the context of just completely discounting the physical world. My (limited) understanding of Buddhism tells me that they see the present as being integral to the future, that acts done now will set you up for Nirvana later. Christianity waffles a LOT on this...some claim that acts are essential, but most claim that only faith in Christ is essential.

A faith in Christ is best characterized by the scripture: "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." (http://biblehub.com...). I say "faith" because one can follow the philosophy of the Sermon on the Mount (turn the other cheek) without a specific faith in Christ. This faith clearly involves completely and utterly discounting the physical world. A faith like this would condone various things, such as prohibiting procreation (http://www.biblegateway.com...) and everything short of suicide (although I really can't figure out what justification Christianity has against suicide...everything in the Bible would point to condoning it in order to be closer to God).

IMHO Christianity is an extremely anti-natalist perspective, religion, and philosophy. It's so right from the start, i.e. the original sin.

My foundations for the argument of 'life being suffering' are not the Bible, but rather critical thoughts (or at least attempting to be critical in thought).

I've put a lot of critical thinking into my experiences with Christianity. It's very, very easy to do...it's everywhere. I just finished a debate where I framed the Lord of the Rings in a Judeo-Christian context in which I perceive Tolkien describing a dichotomy of religiosity, i.e. the "good" of religion against the "evil" of religion. It was a messy debate since I was actually trying to formulate my perspective through debating, but my final round was, if I may say so, quite interesting.

=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 11:53:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I would also add, and would be up for debating sometime in the future, that Christ was the ultimate anti-natalist.

Today we talk about "suicide by cop"...for Christ, it was "suicide by "Pontius Pilate". And given that his death was wholly preventable (he just had to shut up), it's most definitely a suicide.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 11:55:25 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 11:53:25 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
I would also add, and would be up for debating sometime in the future, that Christ was the ultimate anti-natalist.

Today we talk about "suicide by cop"...for Christ, it was "suicide by "Pontius Pilate". And given that [His] death was wholly preventable ([He] just had to shut up), it's most definitely a suicide.

Corrected, lol, in case the religious types get offended by my lack of respect. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 5:44:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 11:22:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 3:39:25 AM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 3:14:17 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

This would elaborate upon and reconcile why pleasure would seem to not be important, yet as you point out is obviously very important. This would also describe why people who have all kinds of material comforts may end up committing suicide anyway - perhaps they were at imminent risk of losing them, or perhaps they saw the rate at which they were accumulating pleasure to be in a terminal nose-dive...perhaps this would explain depression and suicidal tendencies in people when they undergo retirement from a job that gave them pleasure.

So (future) lessening of the rate in acquiring positives. From what I've heard, it's a 'I can't escape' or 'I can't go on' feeling. Maybe, I'd argue, it's that the negatives are the default, and the positives are the escape. So, you're not escaping with positives at a rate in which you're accustomed to, hence the feeling of suicide.

What you're describing here is a negative rate of pleasure accumulation, so I would say we're both in agreement and there's no point of disagreement. The question then simply becomes whether or not the person is actually experiencing a negative rate of pleasure accumulation.

I mean, in the end we all die so in one sense you're going to be eventually right even without suicide being taken into consideration. In another sense, people believe that procreation is what makes us immortal, so if we truly are immortal, then maybe death is the escape...?

Ergh, I don't like that poetic phrase (procreation makes us immortal), because it's just that: a poetic phrase. But yes, death would be the escape.

lol, IMHO "escape" in general when applied to this topic is quite poetic, yes? =)

Well, I guess, but it does serve a practical purpose, rather than a purely poetic one. To escape is to shed yourself of the burdensome psychology. Procreation makes us immortal, on the other hand, pertains to something other than it's literal meaning, but it's far more poetic.


To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

But anti-natalists would extend from the mentally-ill to say that all humans suffer by being alive. This 'imagination' is such a strange point. Are you saying that our imagination can help us deal with reality, or escape it? It thinks it's only the former, but I'm not quite sure.

I'm not sure why you focus on the word "escape". Without that focus, it would seem we're in agreement.

I think that being alive is, fundamentally, like being in a maze that has no end.

That's one way to look at it...that life is a puzzle meant to be solved. I think if you look at it that way you're going to get frustrated. That was also something I realized in that thread (what a thread, lol!)...that life is inconclusive, whereas death is quite conclusive.

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.


That doesn't stop us from trying to figure it out though. I don't know what to make of that.

Well, it's not like it was designed intelligently. I mean, we basically know how evolution brought us to this very moment. There isn't necessarily anything to "figure out" because evolution doesn't operate intelligently, it simply determines which life is to continue by way of weeding out the weaker.


On the suffering by being alive, lol, such a Christian argument. I would then ask if you would still think this way if you did not believe in the concept of original sin.

Whoah, nowadays, I'm anything but a Christian. I basically argue against procreation and I would condone suicide in a lot of cases. I don't think you'd ever mistake me for being a Christian if you consider those two things.

Something I've noticed about Christianity is that it permeates everything...EVERYTHING. The footprint is unmistakable.

For example, Buddhists also talk about suffering and the need to ameliorate it, but they don't put it in the context of just completely discounting the physical world. My (limited) understanding of Buddhism tells me that they see the present as being integral to the future, that acts done now will set you up for Nirvana later. Christianity waffles a LOT on this...some claim that acts are essential, but most claim that only faith in Christ is essential.

A faith in Christ is best characterized by the scripture: "Give back to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's." (http://biblehub.com...). I say "faith" because one can follow the philosophy of the Sermon on the Mount (turn the other cheek) without a specific faith in Christ. This faith clearly involves completely and utterly discounting the physical world. A faith like this would condone various things, such as prohibiting procreation (http://www.biblegateway.com...) and everything short of suicide (although I really can't figure out what justification Christianity has against suicide...everything in the Bible would point to condoning it in order to be closer to God).

Bah, the Bible is contradictory on so many occasions, you couldn't possible know its stance about procreation, suicide or the physical world. I can't take it seriously anymore...


IMHO Christianity is an extremely anti-natalist perspective, religion, and philosophy. It's so right from the start, i.e. the original sin.

Sure, some aspects of it are; I'll agree with you on that.


My foundations for the argument of 'life being suffering' are not the Bible, but rather critical thoughts (or at least attempting to be critical in thought).

I've put a lot of critical thinking into my experiences with Christianity. It's very, very easy to do...it's everywhere. I just finished a debate where I framed the Lord of the Rings in a Judeo-Christian context in which I perceive Tolkien describing a dichotomy of religiosity, i.e. the "good" of religion against the "evil" of religion. It was a messy debate since I was actually trying to formulate my perspective through debating, but my final round was, if I may say so, quite interesting.

Really? You spend your time discussing the Bible and aspect of Christianity? Don't you find Christianity to be a bit silly?


=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o

Haha, what was that?
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 5:57:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 5:44:49 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 11:22:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Ergh, I don't like that poetic phrase (procreation makes us immortal), because it's just that: a poetic phrase. But yes, death would be the escape.

lol, IMHO "escape" in general when applied to this topic is quite poetic, yes? =)

Well, I guess, but it does serve a practical purpose, rather than a purely poetic one. To escape is to shed yourself of the burdensome psychology. Procreation makes us immortal, on the other hand, pertains to something other than it's literal meaning, but it's far more poetic.

I could go on a tangent here, but I'm not going to, lol.

To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

But anti-natalists would extend from the mentally-ill to say that all humans suffer by being alive. This 'imagination' is such a strange point. Are you saying that our imagination can help us deal with reality, or escape it? It thinks it's only the former, but I'm not quite sure.

I'm not sure why you focus on the word "escape". Without that focus, it would seem we're in agreement.

I think that being alive is, fundamentally, like being in a maze that has no end.

That's one way to look at it...that life is a puzzle meant to be solved. I think if you look at it that way you're going to get frustrated. That was also something I realized in that thread (what a thread, lol!)...that life is inconclusive, whereas death is quite conclusive.

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.

What exactly do you mean by "satisfied"?

That doesn't stop us from trying to figure it out though. I don't know what to make of that.

Well, it's not like it was designed intelligently. I mean, we basically know how evolution brought us to this very moment. There isn't necessarily anything to "figure out" because evolution doesn't operate intelligently, it simply determines which life is to continue by way of weeding out the weaker.

So you do not believe that events are pre-determined? You believe in free will and choice?

I believe in neither, so it would follow that I could see the potential for intelligent design.

Bah, the Bible is contradictory on so many occasions, you couldn't possible know its stance about procreation, suicide or the physical world. I can't take it seriously anymore...

lol, fair enough.

IMHO Christianity is an extremely anti-natalist perspective, religion, and philosophy. It's so right from the start, i.e. the original sin.

Sure, some aspects of it are; I'll agree with you on that.


My foundations for the argument of 'life being suffering' are not the Bible, but rather critical thoughts (or at least attempting to be critical in thought).

I've put a lot of critical thinking into my experiences with Christianity. It's very, very easy to do...it's everywhere. I just finished a debate where I framed the Lord of the Rings in a Judeo-Christian context in which I perceive Tolkien describing a dichotomy of religiosity, i.e. the "good" of religion against the "evil" of religion. It was a messy debate since I was actually trying to formulate my perspective through debating, but my final round was, if I may say so, quite interesting.

Really? You spend your time discussing the Bible and aspect of Christianity? Don't you find Christianity to be a bit silly?

Regardless of however I view Christianity, what's not silly is the sheer number of people who believe it, and the enormous amount of cultural permeation it has in our society. It pays to be cognizant of it, IMHO, and to be able to discuss it intelligently and, when necessary, respectfully.

I mean, there's a compelling moral vision there, regardless of its practicality. That I cannot deny.

=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o

Haha, what was that?

lol, it's a little Kirby guy giving you a Kirby jab. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 6:23:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 5:57:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:44:49 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 11:22:20 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

Ergh, I don't like that poetic phrase (procreation makes us immortal), because it's just that: a poetic phrase. But yes, death would be the escape.

lol, IMHO "escape" in general when applied to this topic is quite poetic, yes? =)

Well, I guess, but it does serve a practical purpose, rather than a purely poetic one. To escape is to shed yourself of the burdensome psychology. Procreation makes us immortal, on the other hand, pertains to something other than it's literal meaning, but it's far more poetic.

I could go on a tangent here, but I'm not going to, lol.

Okay...

To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

But anti-natalists would extend from the mentally-ill to say that all humans suffer by being alive. This 'imagination' is such a strange point. Are you saying that our imagination can help us deal with reality, or escape it? It thinks it's only the former, but I'm not quite sure.

I'm not sure why you focus on the word "escape". Without that focus, it would seem we're in agreement.

I think that being alive is, fundamentally, like being in a maze that has no end.

That's one way to look at it...that life is a puzzle meant to be solved. I think if you look at it that way you're going to get frustrated. That was also something I realized in that thread (what a thread, lol!)...that life is inconclusive, whereas death is quite conclusive.

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.

What exactly do you mean by "satisfied"?

Comfortable with the situation; relieved of discomfort. I'm talking about an internal 'lacking' rather than a literal comfort/discomfort. You can't be motivated to do something without this discomfort.


That doesn't stop us from trying to figure it out though. I don't know what to make of that.

Well, it's not like it was designed intelligently. I mean, we basically know how evolution brought us to this very moment. There isn't necessarily anything to "figure out" because evolution doesn't operate intelligently, it simply determines which life is to continue by way of weeding out the weaker.

So you do not believe that events are pre-determined? You believe in free will and choice?

Oh, I thought you meant something else. I don't think free will exists, but nor do I see intelligence in the structuring of the universe.

I believe in neither, so it would follow that I could see the potential for intelligent design.

The standard Intelligent Design argument is inherently contradictory; it basically tries to argue that God is both limited and not limited at the same time. I've argued this a few times in debate.


Bah, the Bible is contradictory on so many occasions, you couldn't possible know its stance about procreation, suicide or the physical world. I can't take it seriously anymore...

lol, fair enough.

IMHO Christianity is an extremely anti-natalist perspective, religion, and philosophy. It's so right from the start, i.e. the original sin.

Sure, some aspects of it are; I'll agree with you on that.


My foundations for the argument of 'life being suffering' are not the Bible, but rather critical thoughts (or at least attempting to be critical in thought).

I've put a lot of critical thinking into my experiences with Christianity. It's very, very easy to do...it's everywhere. I just finished a debate where I framed the Lord of the Rings in a Judeo-Christian context in which I perceive Tolkien describing a dichotomy of religiosity, i.e. the "good" of religion against the "evil" of religion. It was a messy debate since I was actually trying to formulate my perspective through debating, but my final round was, if I may say so, quite interesting.

Really? You spend your time discussing the Bible and aspect of Christianity? Don't you find Christianity to be a bit silly?

Regardless of however I view Christianity, what's not silly is the sheer number of people who believe it, and the enormous amount of cultural permeation it has in our society. It pays to be cognizant of it, IMHO, and to be able to discuss it intelligently and, when necessary, respectfully.

Why should I have respect for people who believe in this garbage without ever considering the prospect that they might be wrong?


I mean, there's a compelling moral vision there, regardless of its practicality. That I cannot deny.

It has convoluted moral visions at best. I mean, it's basically shotgun argumentation: the Bible is loaded with so many things, so much that they even contradict, that there is bound to be a compelling moral vision in there.


=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o

Haha, what was that?

lol, it's a little Kirby guy giving you a Kirby jab. =)

Oh okay, I thought you were a weaboo or something.
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 6:28:43 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 6:23:28 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:57:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

But anti-natalists would extend from the mentally-ill to say that all humans suffer by being alive. This 'imagination' is such a strange point. Are you saying that our imagination can help us deal with reality, or escape it? It thinks it's only the former, but I'm not quite sure.

I'm not sure why you focus on the word "escape". Without that focus, it would seem we're in agreement.

I think that being alive is, fundamentally, like being in a maze that has no end.

That's one way to look at it...that life is a puzzle meant to be solved. I think if you look at it that way you're going to get frustrated. That was also something I realized in that thread (what a thread, lol!)...that life is inconclusive, whereas death is quite conclusive.

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.

What exactly do you mean by "satisfied"?

Comfortable with the situation; relieved of discomfort. I'm talking about an internal 'lacking' rather than a literal comfort/discomfort. You can't be motivated to do something without this discomfort.

How temporal is this "satisfaction"?

That doesn't stop us from trying to figure it out though. I don't know what to make of that.

Well, it's not like it was designed intelligently. I mean, we basically know how evolution brought us to this very moment. There isn't necessarily anything to "figure out" because evolution doesn't operate intelligently, it simply determines which life is to continue by way of weeding out the weaker.

So you do not believe that events are pre-determined? You believe in free will and choice?

Oh, I thought you meant something else. I don't think free will exists, but nor do I see intelligence in the structuring of the universe.

I believe in neither, so it would follow that I could see the potential for intelligent design.

The standard Intelligent Design argument is inherently contradictory; it basically tries to argue that God is both limited and not limited at the same time. I've argued this a few times in debate.

I don't have anything to add to this.

Bah, the Bible is contradictory on so many occasions, you couldn't possible know its stance about procreation, suicide or the physical world. I can't take it seriously anymore...

lol, fair enough.

IMHO Christianity is an extremely anti-natalist perspective, religion, and philosophy. It's so right from the start, i.e. the original sin.

Sure, some aspects of it are; I'll agree with you on that.


My foundations for the argument of 'life being suffering' are not the Bible, but rather critical thoughts (or at least attempting to be critical in thought).

I've put a lot of critical thinking into my experiences with Christianity. It's very, very easy to do...it's everywhere. I just finished a debate where I framed the Lord of the Rings in a Judeo-Christian context in which I perceive Tolkien describing a dichotomy of religiosity, i.e. the "good" of religion against the "evil" of religion. It was a messy debate since I was actually trying to formulate my perspective through debating, but my final round was, if I may say so, quite interesting.

Really? You spend your time discussing the Bible and aspect of Christianity? Don't you find Christianity to be a bit silly?

Regardless of however I view Christianity, what's not silly is the sheer number of people who believe it, and the enormous amount of cultural permeation it has in our society. It pays to be cognizant of it, IMHO, and to be able to discuss it intelligently and, when necessary, respectfully.

Why should I have respect for people who believe in this garbage without ever considering the prospect that they might be wrong?

Because you respect them despite their beliefs?

I mean, there's a compelling moral vision there, regardless of its practicality. That I cannot deny.

It has convoluted moral visions at best. I mean, it's basically shotgun argumentation: the Bible is loaded with so many things, so much that they even contradict, that there is bound to be a compelling moral vision in there.

Right, and pulling out that compelling moral vision is what most people have already done, while attempting to ignore the inherent contradictions.

=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o

Haha, what was that?

lol, it's a little Kirby guy giving you a Kirby jab. =)

Oh okay, I thought you were a weaboo or something.

wtf is a weaboo?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 6:29:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 6:28:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:23:28 PM, Caploxion wrote:

Right, and pulling out that compelling moral vision is what [MANY] people have already done, while attempting to ignore the inherent contradictions.

Correction, small but significant.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 6:45:13 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 6:28:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:23:28 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:57:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

To me, suicide shows a shocking lack of imagination. I suspect that it's mostly due to fear of some kind.

But there are realities, right? Is it not rational to fear terrible realities?

I suppose the best way to answer your question is that suicide would be justifiable under such circumstances, which is what I believe. Patients with terminal illnesses that have nothing to look forward to other than extreme pain and discomfort would be one such situation. Is this also demonstrative of a shocking lack of imagination? Yes...otherwise we'd have found a cure for such a disease, right?

But anti-natalists would extend from the mentally-ill to say that all humans suffer by being alive. This 'imagination' is such a strange point. Are you saying that our imagination can help us deal with reality, or escape it? It thinks it's only the former, but I'm not quite sure.

I'm not sure why you focus on the word "escape". Without that focus, it would seem we're in agreement.

I think that being alive is, fundamentally, like being in a maze that has no end.

That's one way to look at it...that life is a puzzle meant to be solved. I think if you look at it that way you're going to get frustrated. That was also something I realized in that thread (what a thread, lol!)...that life is inconclusive, whereas death is quite conclusive.

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.

What exactly do you mean by "satisfied"?

Comfortable with the situation; relieved of discomfort. I'm talking about an internal 'lacking' rather than a literal comfort/discomfort. You can't be motivated to do something without this discomfort.

How temporal is this "satisfaction"?

It depends on the situation, but it certainly doesn't last forever.


That doesn't stop us from trying to figure it out though. I don't know what to make of that.

Well, it's not like it was designed intelligently. I mean, we basically know how evolution brought us to this very moment. There isn't necessarily anything to "figure out" because evolution doesn't operate intelligently, it simply determines which life is to continue by way of weeding out the weaker.

So you do not believe that events are pre-determined? You believe in free will and choice?

Oh, I thought you meant something else. I don't think free will exists, but nor do I see intelligence in the structuring of the universe.

I believe in neither, so it would follow that I could see the potential for intelligent design.

The standard Intelligent Design argument is inherently contradictory; it basically tries to argue that God is both limited and not limited at the same time. I've argued this a few times in debate.

I don't have anything to add to this.

Bah, the Bible is contradictory on so many occasions, you couldn't possible know its stance about procreation, suicide or the physical world. I can't take it seriously anymore...

lol, fair enough.

IMHO Christianity is an extremely anti-natalist perspective, religion, and philosophy. It's so right from the start, i.e. the original sin.

Sure, some aspects of it are; I'll agree with you on that.


My foundations for the argument of 'life being suffering' are not the Bible, but rather critical thoughts (or at least attempting to be critical in thought).

I've put a lot of critical thinking into my experiences with Christianity. It's very, very easy to do...it's everywhere. I just finished a debate where I framed the Lord of the Rings in a Judeo-Christian context in which I perceive Tolkien describing a dichotomy of religiosity, i.e. the "good" of religion against the "evil" of religion. It was a messy debate since I was actually trying to formulate my perspective through debating, but my final round was, if I may say so, quite interesting.

Really? You spend your time discussing the Bible and aspect of Christianity? Don't you find Christianity to be a bit silly?

Regardless of however I view Christianity, what's not silly is the sheer number of people who believe it, and the enormous amount of cultural permeation it has in our society. It pays to be cognizant of it, IMHO, and to be able to discuss it intelligently and, when necessary, respectfully.

Why should I have respect for people who believe in this garbage without ever considering the prospect that they might be wrong?

Because you respect them despite their beliefs?

Sure, I respect their right to have beliefs, even if the beliefs are ridiculous nonsense.


I mean, there's a compelling moral vision there, regardless of its practicality. That I cannot deny.

It has convoluted moral visions at best. I mean, it's basically shotgun argumentation: the Bible is loaded with so many things, so much that they even contradict, that there is bound to be a compelling moral vision in there.

Right, and pulling out that compelling moral vision is what most people have already done, while attempting to ignore the inherent contradictions.

Yes, exactly.


=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o

Haha, what was that?

lol, it's a little Kirby guy giving you a Kirby jab. =)

Oh okay, I thought you were a weaboo or something.

wtf is a weaboo?

Someone who isn't Japanese that is obsessed with Japanese culture -- the thing looked like an emoticon.
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 6:51:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 6:45:13 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:28:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:23:28 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:57:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.

What exactly do you mean by "satisfied"?

Comfortable with the situation; relieved of discomfort. I'm talking about an internal 'lacking' rather than a literal comfort/discomfort. You can't be motivated to do something without this discomfort.

How temporal is this "satisfaction"?

It depends on the situation, but it certainly doesn't last forever.

Ok, so we can replace "satisfaction" with what we've been discussing, i.e. "pleasure" and achieve the same dynamic, i.e. rate of satisfaction being central as opposed to points of satisfaction, and that satisfaction is not a binary property, but a relative property (i.e. not 0/1, but 0, 1, and everything in between).

So, by that logic, I am posting here because either I am achieving a certain rate of satisfaction by doing so, or that I see an increase in the rate of satisfaction by doing so.

Why should I have respect for people who believe in this garbage without ever considering the prospect that they might be wrong?

Because you respect them despite their beliefs?

Sure, I respect their right to have beliefs, even if the beliefs are ridiculous nonsense.

lol, so I believe you've answered your own question then?

I mean, there's a compelling moral vision there, regardless of its practicality. That I cannot deny.

It has convoluted moral visions at best. I mean, it's basically shotgun argumentation: the Bible is loaded with so many things, so much that they even contradict, that there is bound to be a compelling moral vision in there.

Right, and pulling out that compelling moral vision is what most people have already done, while attempting to ignore the inherent contradictions.

Yes, exactly.

Cool.

=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o

Haha, what was that?

lol, it's a little Kirby guy giving you a Kirby jab. =)

Oh okay, I thought you were a weaboo or something.

wtf is a weaboo?

Someone who isn't Japanese that is obsessed with Japanese culture -- the thing looked like an emoticon.

lol. Learn something new every day.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 6:58:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 6:51:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:45:13 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:28:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:23:28 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:57:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.

What exactly do you mean by "satisfied"?

Comfortable with the situation; relieved of discomfort. I'm talking about an internal 'lacking' rather than a literal comfort/discomfort. You can't be motivated to do something without this discomfort.

How temporal is this "satisfaction"?

It depends on the situation, but it certainly doesn't last forever.

Ok, so we can replace "satisfaction" with what we've been discussing, i.e. "pleasure" and achieve the same dynamic, i.e. rate of satisfaction being central as opposed to points of satisfaction, and that satisfaction is not a binary property, but a relative property (i.e. not 0/1, but 0, 1, and everything in between).

So, by that logic, I am posting here because either I am achieving a certain rate of satisfaction by doing so, or that I see an increase in the rate of satisfaction by doing so.

But you also have a rate of discomfort, right? Could that not offset the continuous gains made by rate of satisfaction?-, thereby nullifying the rate of satisfaction (in an overall sense)?

Why should I have respect for people who believe in this garbage without ever considering the prospect that they might be wrong?

Because you respect them despite their beliefs?

Sure, I respect their right to have beliefs, even if the beliefs are ridiculous nonsense.

lol, so I believe you've answered your own question then?

It looks like it.

I mean, there's a compelling moral vision there, regardless of its practicality. That I cannot deny.

It has convoluted moral visions at best. I mean, it's basically shotgun argumentation: the Bible is loaded with so many things, so much that they even contradict, that there is bound to be a compelling moral vision in there.

Right, and pulling out that compelling moral vision is what most people have already done, while attempting to ignore the inherent contradictions.

Yes, exactly.

Cool.

Freezing

=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o

Haha, what was that?

lol, it's a little Kirby guy giving you a Kirby jab. =)

Oh okay, I thought you were a weaboo or something.

wtf is a weaboo?

Someone who isn't Japanese that is obsessed with Japanese culture -- the thing looked like an emoticon.

lol. Learn something new every day.

Not that this new information is particularly useful...
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 7:03:09 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 6:58:50 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:51:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:45:13 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:28:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:23:28 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:57:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.

What exactly do you mean by "satisfied"?

Comfortable with the situation; relieved of discomfort. I'm talking about an internal 'lacking' rather than a literal comfort/discomfort. You can't be motivated to do something without this discomfort.

How temporal is this "satisfaction"?

It depends on the situation, but it certainly doesn't last forever.

Ok, so we can replace "satisfaction" with what we've been discussing, i.e. "pleasure" and achieve the same dynamic, i.e. rate of satisfaction being central as opposed to points of satisfaction, and that satisfaction is not a binary property, but a relative property (i.e. not 0/1, but 0, 1, and everything in between).

So, by that logic, I am posting here because either I am achieving a certain rate of satisfaction by doing so, or that I see an increase in the rate of satisfaction by doing so.

But you also have a rate of discomfort, right? Could that not offset the continuous gains made by rate of satisfaction?-, thereby nullifying the rate of satisfaction (in an overall sense)?

Yes, of course. Such people who have an increasing rate of dissatisfaction would be prone to anti-natalist tendencies, IMHO. =)

Why should I have respect for people who believe in this garbage without ever considering the prospect that they might be wrong?

Because you respect them despite their beliefs?

Sure, I respect their right to have beliefs, even if the beliefs are ridiculous nonsense.

lol, so I believe you've answered your own question then?

It looks like it.

I mean, there's a compelling moral vision there, regardless of its practicality. That I cannot deny.

It has convoluted moral visions at best. I mean, it's basically shotgun argumentation: the Bible is loaded with so many things, so much that they even contradict, that there is bound to be a compelling moral vision in there.

Right, and pulling out that compelling moral vision is what most people have already done, while attempting to ignore the inherent contradictions.

Yes, exactly.

Cool.

Freezing

Well, just to elaborate, this would mean that you'd be able to pick out a particular moral vision that is not convoluted from the Bible. IMHO this is possible to do, although exactly how realistic this moral vision is is highly debatable, and right now I'm leaning towards wholly impractical.

=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o

Haha, what was that?

lol, it's a little Kirby guy giving you a Kirby jab. =)

Oh okay, I thought you were a weaboo or something.

wtf is a weaboo?

Someone who isn't Japanese that is obsessed with Japanese culture -- the thing looked like an emoticon.

lol. Learn something new every day.

Not that this new information is particularly useful...

Aye, I'm not an otaku or anything. I have only a handful of anime I like, and most are not in the comedy genre by any stretch of the imagination.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Caploxion
Posts: 454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 7:45:34 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 7:03:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:58:50 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:51:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:45:13 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:28:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:23:28 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:57:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.

What exactly do you mean by "satisfied"?

Comfortable with the situation; relieved of discomfort. I'm talking about an internal 'lacking' rather than a literal comfort/discomfort. You can't be motivated to do something without this discomfort.

How temporal is this "satisfaction"?

It depends on the situation, but it certainly doesn't last forever.

Ok, so we can replace "satisfaction" with what we've been discussing, i.e. "pleasure" and achieve the same dynamic, i.e. rate of satisfaction being central as opposed to points of satisfaction, and that satisfaction is not a binary property, but a relative property (i.e. not 0/1, but 0, 1, and everything in between).

So, by that logic, I am posting here because either I am achieving a certain rate of satisfaction by doing so, or that I see an increase in the rate of satisfaction by doing so.

But you also have a rate of discomfort, right? Could that not offset the continuous gains made by rate of satisfaction?-, thereby nullifying the rate of satisfaction (in an overall sense)?

Yes, of course. Such people who have an increasing rate of dissatisfaction would be prone to anti-natalist tendencies, IMHO. =)

Right, and what if the majority of people had an increasing rate of dissatisfaction? Would that not then indicate that life is, overall, bad?


Why should I have respect for people who believe in this garbage without ever considering the prospect that they might be wrong?

Because you respect them despite their beliefs?

Sure, I respect their right to have beliefs, even if the beliefs are ridiculous nonsense.

lol, so I believe you've answered your own question then?

It looks like it.

I mean, there's a compelling moral vision there, regardless of its practicality. That I cannot deny.

It has convoluted moral visions at best. I mean, it's basically shotgun argumentation: the Bible is loaded with so many things, so much that they even contradict, that there is bound to be a compelling moral vision in there.

Right, and pulling out that compelling moral vision is what most people have already done, while attempting to ignore the inherent contradictions.

Yes, exactly.

Cool.

Freezing

Well, just to elaborate, this would mean that you'd be able to pick out a particular moral vision that is not convoluted from the Bible. IMHO this is possible to do, although exactly how realistic this moral vision is is highly debatable, and right now I'm leaning towards wholly impractical.

Sure, you'd be able to cherry-pick the Bible and make it much better, but then it wouldn't be the 'divine word', so that defeats the purpose.


=)

;-)

=D

XD

o)' ')----o

Haha, what was that?

lol, it's a little Kirby guy giving you a Kirby jab. =)

Oh okay, I thought you were a weaboo or something.

wtf is a weaboo?

Someone who isn't Japanese that is obsessed with Japanese culture -- the thing looked like an emoticon.

lol. Learn something new every day.

Not that this new information is particularly useful...

Aye, I'm not an otaku or anything. I have only a handful of anime I like, and most are not in the comedy genre by any stretch of the imagination.

Out of curiousity, which animes do you like?
"That's what people do. They breed, and then their children breed, and then their children do it, and their children do it. But, have you ever asked why we do it?" - Jim 'Metamorphhh' Crawford

"There is no doubt that life is given us, not to be enjoyed, but to be overcome; to be got over." - Arthur Schopenhauer

"It's like building a broken building, repairing it and then saying that now I have value in doing so...but it didn't need to be broken in the first place." -Gary 'Inmendham' Mosher
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:10:28 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 7:45:34 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 7:03:09 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:58:50 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:51:04 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:45:13 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:28:43 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 6:23:28 PM, Caploxion wrote:
At 1/23/2014 5:57:37 PM, wrichcirw wrote:

No! Not a puzzle meant to be solved, but a puzzle that can't be solved. It's the function of sentient psychology to never be satisfied. That's why, after all you've posted here, you're continuing to post. Even the greatest of achievements bring only momentary euphoria.

What exactly do you mean by "satisfied"?

Comfortable with the situation; relieved of discomfort. I'm talking about an internal 'lacking' rather than a literal comfort/discomfort. You can't be motivated to do something without this discomfort.

How temporal is this "satisfaction"?

It depends on the situation, but it certainly doesn't last forever.

Ok, so we can replace "satisfaction" with what we've been discussing, i.e. "pleasure" and achieve the same dynamic, i.e. rate of satisfaction being central as opposed to points of satisfaction, and that satisfaction is not a binary property, but a relative property (i.e. not 0/1, but 0, 1, and everything in between).

So, by that logic, I am posting here because either I am achieving a certain rate of satisfaction by doing so, or that I see an increase in the rate of satisfaction by doing so.

But you also have a rate of discomfort, right? Could that not offset the continuous gains made by rate of satisfaction?-, thereby nullifying the rate of satisfaction (in an overall sense)?

Yes, of course. Such people who have an increasing rate of dissatisfaction would be prone to anti-natalist tendencies, IMHO. =)

Right, and what if the majority of people had an increasing rate of dissatisfaction? Would that not then indicate that life is, overall, bad?

You'd have to measure everything, lol. You're making a statement about the aggregate, so we'd have to add up the aggregate satisfaction, i.e. measure every individual's level/rate of satisfaction before reaching your conclusion. Perhaps the top 20% of the populace have an amazingly high rate of satisfaction that far outweighs the bottom 80% of the population's cumdrudgery and malaise.

This would justify revolution, but not anti-natalism.

Anyway, what I would use as a template for achieving a rate of satisfaction is investing. Indeed, investing is all about rate of return, so given you're good at investing, you're going to achieve a decent and constant rate of satisfaction. IMHO this is why most of the population is so disgruntled...most of the population does not think (at all) like an investor.

Well, just to elaborate, this would mean that you'd be able to pick out a particular moral vision that is not convoluted from the Bible. IMHO this is possible to do, although exactly how realistic this moral vision is is highly debatable, and right now I'm leaning towards wholly impractical.

Sure, you'd be able to cherry-pick the Bible and make it much better, but then it wouldn't be the 'divine word', so that defeats the purpose.

But does it have to be divine word? Can't you use the Bible like you would any other document?

Out of curiousity, which animes do you like?

Old school stuff mainly. The OVAs for Bubblegum Crisis, Akira, Ghost in the Shell, both movies (the 2nd one is the most stunning visual spectacle I've ever seen...far better than even movies like Avatar and Prometheus), both TV series...that title is IMHO pure gold. A handful of other anime outside of that, maybe Ninja Scroll, that's really the only title I can think of off the top of my head. All super-cereal stuff. =)

People have lent me anime like Evangelion and Cowboy Bebop...I found the former more disturbing than entertaining, and the latter about on par with watching Seinfeld, i.e. zero substance, all style. Neither suited my tastes particularly.

By chance someone recommended to me the Golgo-13 TV series. I found that to be absolutely hilarious, which is kind of ironic given the premise of that show, lol.

When I was in college I was invited to attend an anime club's showings. I routinely walked out of those showings, having to apologize to those who invited me...I had that bad of a reaction to most of their screenings, lol.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:22:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Quote from True Detective, an awesome TV show: "I think the honorable thing for our species to do is deny our programming, stop reproducing, walk hand in hand into extinction, one last midnight, brothers and sisters opting out of a raw deal."

...lol. Well, I dunno. I enjoy life a lot of the time and sometimes I wish I'd never been born at all. If I have kids, they'll probably be accidents.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:32:11 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
My grandmother's told me I was a mistake all my life, since I was like 6 years old and in very graphic detail, and probably because she gets the cruelty of life and doesn't want me taking it out on my parents lol. She told me Santa wasn't real too... I think she's one of those idiot savants lol.
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:34:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well I think most people are idiot savants really. In the purely existential, feeling sense.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:51:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:34:19 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Well I think most people are idiot savants really. In the purely existential, feeling sense.

wb, mr. troll.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/23/2014 8:53:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/23/2014 8:51:33 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 1/23/2014 8:34:19 PM, AnDoctuir wrote:
Well I think most people are idiot savants really. In the purely existential, feeling sense.

wb, mr. troll.

Please refrain from calling troll that which you do not understand. Just ask man.

Also, thank you =)
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 7:26:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Hrm. Well, I hope your ban is only temporary, and that you return soon. =)
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/24/2014 8:24:40 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 1/24/2014 7:45:42 AM, AnDoctuir wrote:
The human capacity for self-delusion is as close to god as we can empirically document.

Not talking to you bro.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?