Oh, S, and you were doing so well. — T Clark

I didn't do nufin', gov.

I'd agree that the parents avoid that risk. Not the child though, because there isn't any child that has avoided the risk. — Echarmion

:up:

First off, you haven’t shown it to be faulty yet. — khaled

I have, but obviously you disagree.

Secondly, if antinatalist reasoning is actually followed there would be no fetus to kill or not kill. — khaled

That's an irrelevant point.

Me too. However that is completely irrelevant. Whether or not you are glad to have been born doesn’t determine whether giving birth is right or wrong. You and me are lucky enough that the risk paid off, that doesn’t mean it was ok to take the risk in the first place. In the same way that if person A stabbed person B and person B turned out to be a masochist and enjoyed it, that doesn’t make stabbing in general okay. — khaled

This is just a really poor response. My point in full was not just about you and I, but billions of people, and it's clearly not irrelevant for any reasonable analysis. And none of your analogies are ever close enough to be appropriate. Stabbing someone isn't close enough to giving birth. They're almost nothing alike. The comparison is a joke. There's nothing inconsistent in objecting to stabbing people, but not objecting to people having a baby. Your arguments suffer from the same structural failings. This failure of an argument is just like your earlier failure of an argument where you mistakenly believed that I had a burden to justify causing blindness, which is just ridiculous. Any argument which relies on a false analogy is worthless.

The fact is, in real life the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available. Name a situation where this isn’t the case. — khaled

No it isn't, I already have, and the burden is on you, so don't try to fallaciously shift it to me.

Please come up with one not birth related where there someone is said to be justified to do something that risks severely harming someone else when consent is not available and where a less risky alternative is available. Because giving a birth related example and using your own personal experience doesn’t work as I’ve shown. — khaled

That's moving the goalposts, and the initial burden lies with you, not me. Nevertheless, I will make an exception and I will give you a single example, even though you haven't met your burden. But if you reject it, then you will still have to justify your unsupported assertion that the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available.

The counterexample refuting your assertion is that of a person who has had an accident leaving them unconscious and requiring urgent surgery in order to stay alive, with the alternative of doing nothing almost certainly resulting in death, and the decision being in the hands of the person's next of kin. Now, according to your warped way of thinking, death would be the least risky option, because that would avoid all of the risks accompanied with continued living, whereas the surgery would be considerably more risky, because then, if successful, they'd run the risk of stubbing their toe, or breaking up with their girlfriend, or whatever. You know, all of the things that you think can make life not worth living.

The next of kin should decide for them to have the surgery, because their life is worth living, and because if that turns out to be wrong, then they can opt-out, whereas if they're left to die, then there's no opting back in.

So now it's your turn, and you have your work cut out for you. Not only do you have the burden of supporting your premise in it's own right, but you have a counterexample to contend with.

As I’ve pointed out before, this line can be used to justify literally any atrocity. The fact that someone can commit suicide to get out of a situation they hate doesn’t justify putting them in that situation the first place or risking putting them there. — khaled

That's not an implication of my point, it's just what you've read into it. Arguing against that is just to waste time arguing against yourself.

Did I mention not calling anyone a dick? You helped me out with that one by giving me many opportunities to practice turning the other cheek. — T Clark

:grin: :point:

Again, empirically, "folks believe all sorts of wacky crap". — Terrapin Station

That's a shoddy analysis. How many people out of the total population believe that they're on the moon with Chevy Chase?

We've been over this before.

The point is one alternative means no one experiences harm and no one is deprived of good (because there is no actual person who exists). — schopenhauer1

Which is an indifference. Neutral. Neither good nor bad.

The other alternative is someone is born and guaranteed will experience some harm. — schopenhauer1

No, that's not an accurate description of the alternative, as you well know. Why aren't you being intellectually honest? Is that a price worth paying in order to push your stance?

Non-existence- no one is born/no one is deprived = win/win. — schopenhauer1

No, that's not a win. That's a nothing. Whereas a something which includes billions of people enjoying life is better than a nothing. Of course, you don't share that opinion, but that doesn't matter in the bigger picture.

The idea that someone could have had more good experiences or whatnot if born matters not, in this procreational scenario. The risk khaled is talking about is mitigated and no actual person is alive losing out on anything. — schopenhauer1

That's just your rationalisation which hardly anyone finds convincing.

Nonexistence is not a "less risky" alternative for the child though. Non-existance is not more or less pleasant than existence. That's a category error. — Echarmion

True, but not having a child avoids the risk of having a child who lives a life that isn't worth living. Although that risk is vastly outweighed, so, in the vast majority of cases, this risk doesn't matter as much as he suggests.

Whereas I'd say that claiming that any arbitrary person couldn't believe any arbitrary thing is not at all justifiable (and suggests little experience with a wide variety of people, because folks believe all sorts of wacky crap). — Terrapin Station

Not that this should require any further explanation, but one of the weakest types of argument is an appeal to logical possibility over an issue that's about what you think is the case. That it's possible is literally all you have going for you, against all of the evidence to the contrary. So, to quantify it approximately, your case has about 0.000001% going for it, whereas the contrary case has like 9.999999% going for it. So it's a possibility far too remote to take seriously. So you are being totally unreasonable here, Terrapin. Not that you'll admit it, of course.

You didn't ask me, but of course I'd have no objection to that. — Terrapin Station

Yes, but you also say that you seriously think that I could right now believe that I'm on the moon, or an ostrich, etc., etc., so now there's little reason trying to reason with you over anything at all. If you can believe that, then you can believe anything. You've lost all credibility.

Most of the leavers I meet as a poll clerk can take the hit, they are mostly retired and asset rich. — Punshhh

Bastards.

What's this referring to. What problem? — khaled

The bigger problem than the "problem" you were referring to, which was the "problem" of there existing a foetus without a developed nervous system, is the problem of people who think that it should be killed because of faulty anti-natalist reasoning.

Alright then. What do you suppose we do in cases such as these where consent isn't available? I say, go with the least risky option, aka the one least likely to harm. If I claimed that having children is not wrong on the basis of consent but on the basis of consequences what would be the refutation to that?

1- Having children risks disasterous consequences for the child
2- Actions that risk disasterous consequences for others are wrong when a less risky alternative is possible in cases where consent is unavailable
3- Having children is wrong because a less risky alternative is possible (not having children) — khaled

Your second premise isn't necessarily true, so the argument falls apart. The greater risk can be worth it. It isn't even difficult to think of examples where that's the case. I'm a living example, for starters. I am glad to have been born. So it paid off. And there are billions of other people in the same boat. So your argument has no chance.

And moreover, if life isn't worth living anymore, then guess what? You don't have to live. There's a way out through suicide. Not that I'm encouraging that, because for most people who are suicidal, it's a mental health issue, not an indication that their life really isn't worth living.

Haha, okay, this is just too much. I'm done. Thanks for the entertainment.

So, without cracking any jokes, in all sincerity, you really think that I'm the kind of person who could right now believe that I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase? Or that I'm an ostrich? Or that space whales are about to launch an imminent attack on humankind?

If someone says, "I believe I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase," and you go, "Really? You believe that?" And they say, "Yes, I do," etc. then how would "common sense" tell you what they believe? How do you figure that works? — Terrapin Station

No, no, I'm agreeing with you. It's all a big mystery. Even though we've spent a great deal of time communicating with each other over the years, you genuinely think that I could really be crazy enough to believe something so patently absurd. :ok: :lol:

That wouldn't work even, because mental content is only observable to the bearer, because it's what it's like to BE the brain in question.

We can know what someone believes through common sense? Hahahahaha

Talk about not justifying something — Terrapin Station

Hahahahahahahaha, yes, it's so absurd that through common sense, which you act as though you lack, we can know that I don't really believe that I'm on the moon with Chevy Chase!

It's much more sensible to believe that it's a big mystery! After all, I could be crazy, right! Kukoo, kukoo!

:brow:

It seems like that should be obvious. To know that someone is saying something different than they believe, we have to be able to compare what they said with what they believe. — Terrapin Station

You're still not justifying your stance, because we can do that without literally opening up someone's skull and taking a look inside their brain where you presumably think their beliefs reside, and then comparing that with what they said.

We can know what someone believes in many cases through common sense, although I would understand if that was a problem for you.

The bearing it has here is that lying is a matter of someone saying something that's contrary to what they actually believe. — Terrapin Station

That doesn't explain why you think that it's necessary to literally observe someone's beliefs.

When do we get to the part where we're observing their beliefs? — Terrapin Station

That part is silly. That we can't literally observe someone's beliefs has no bearing on anything. That's not a reasonable approach to the matter, Terrapin.

Not from the showing of a single swastika, no. But regular, supportive, coverage of (say) racist stuff does cause a surge in support for organisations like the KKK, who are more prominent today since Trump came to power, and gave them his support. — Pattern-chaser

You're right, he was attacking his own straw man there, as I pointed out. And it is bad form that NOS4A2 just moves on from this sort of criticism without any acknowledgement of error.

I’ve stated explicitly that I don’t believe it should be censored. Take that to whatever logical conclusion you wish and imagine I’m arguing for it, but I cannot make it any more explicit. — NOS4A2

Do you accept the logical consequences of that statement, as I've set out for you? Yes or no? And if no, then why not?

Why is it so difficult to get an answer out of you? Repeating that you don't believe that it should be censored obviously isn't helpful in any way at all, because I'm asking you about the logical consequences of that.

As long as it’s nervous system hasn’t been developed, yes. — khaled

I think that the bigger problem is people who think like you, but fortunately your thinking is only representative of a tiny minority, and I can't see that ever changing.

Ad absurdium arguments only make sense if we agree killing said fetus is absurd. — khaled

You've misunderstood. I was referring to my refutation of your argument on the basis that consent is inapplicable and irrelevant.

How about: waking people up. The only way you can ask for consent is by doing the act in question. Does that mean you can go around waking up anyone who happens to be asleep? — khaled

That's not about consent, that's about the consequences of waking someone up. For it to be about consent, there must be an option to obtain consent. If it was wrong on the basis of not obtaining consent, then you must be able to say to me that I should have obtained his consent first. But we both know that that's not possible.

Is there any other poster that tim doesn't figure is a liar or a troll, though? — Terrapin Station

The point of course being that he has been known to make rash judgements and to jump to conclusions in this regard, and I'd have to agree. Not wanting to restart beef, Tim, just saying it how I see it. The elephant in the room this time is obviously NOS4A2, and Tim's opening post is basically just a verbose attack piece on him, with the intent of seeking attention, gathering supporters, and of influencing the decision-making of the site staff. It's a lynching, basically. Gather your pitchforks, fellow villagers!

Fetuses become humans. I was talking about fetuses in the last reply my bad for not making that clear. — khaled

Okay, so it's both true and irrelevant that a foetus can't consent to being born. It's irrelevant because they can't possibly consent. Consent is only relevant where it's a possibility.

But, even though that in itself is a refutation, I'm curious about where you would take this next. At this point, there is already a living foetus, and we don't have a time machine, so what are you saying? It should be killed?

You know what I meant cut the crap. One of them becomes a sentient being and the other doesn’t. Do you think there should be any change in how we treat them based on that fact? — khaled

No, nonexistent offspring don't become anything, and it doesn't matter at all how we treat them, because none of it is real. These are your peculiar beliefs, implied by what you've said, which you have a burden to justify, and we can't move forward until you tackle this problem. I understand that you're eager to forget about my objection and to rush ahead with your crappy argument, but that's not how this is going to work.

Would you like to reconsider what your argument is about? Is it about real people or imaginary, nonexistent people?

I would if it can be shown bananas experience pain to an extent close to us. — khaled

But nonexistent offspring can't be shown to experience pain.

You think there is no difference between a banana and a fetus? — khaled

Oh boy. If that's what you've got from my reply, then Houston, we have a problem.

You think that there shouldn't be any change in how we treat them based on the fact that one will grow to be a human? — khaled

Nonexistent offspring don't grow. Only real, living offspring grow.

Why does this stop it from being applicable? If it is impossible to give consent, consent is not given. If consent is not given it can't be assumed. It doesn't matter if it was possible to ask for consent or not. — khaled

Of course it matters. You don't think that it matters whether or not you're making any sense, or whether you're committing a fallacious category error?

You wouldn't take seriously an argument based on the premise that bananas don't consent to being eaten, so we shouldn't take seriously your premise that nonexistent offspring don't consent to being born. It's all a load of nonsense. You can have a lot of fun with this sort of nonsense, but it doesn't constitute a valid argument.

How about lampposts which don't dance the fandango? Bedside tables which never listen to you?

Academy Potter And The Chamber Of [Mod edit]Boris Johnson's[/Mod edit] — S

:rofl:

Let's start with this one then:

1- Imposing something that risks significant harm on someone without their consent is wrong
2- Childbirth is imposing something that risks significant harm on someone without their consent
3- Childbirth is wrong — khaled

That's more like it. But there's a noticeable problem with your very first premise, and this is a problem that has been raised countless times before, here on the forum, by myself and others. The issue of consent is totally inapplicable here, because it is an impossibility. There is obviously no one to obtain or deny consent.

So, back to the drawing board. Or better yet, just give up this futile endeavour.

Oh and S, if you're on the moon with Chevy Chase, then who the fuck is this I'm on Mars with? — Isaac

If it's Professor Brian Cox, I'm not going to be happy.

Unlike the sun, you can never observe the way the person's beliefs match up with what they say. — Terrapin Station

And yet we can still spot a lie. Miraculous!

And now Boris kicks out 21 MPs giving him -43, and that’s only with the 10 DUP MPs.

Also first since the 1700s to lose first vote. — Michael

:gasp:

Let's say that there's a problem with immigration. Okay, but what annoys me is that this is given priority over economic prosperity. These people complaining about immigration will end up worse off economically. Is it worth it? No, I don't think so. I'd rather keep the Polish folk around and have more money in my pocket. Also, that's quite a contradiction for Tory's who always cling to the image of being the party you can trust to run the economy.

Perhaps there's just no good justification for claims of rights at all. Maybe it's just something we pulled out of our collective asses. So far, I haven't seen any convincing arguments for entitlements. Even if we assume the existence of God, assertions of "God-given" rights make me wonder where people get the idea that such things as God-given rights are self-evident. — petrichor

The God claims are laughable tosh. But I don't get why the justification which I presented isn't good enough for you. It is good enough for plenty of others, myself included of course. Have you considered the possibility that you're just setting the bar unreasonably high? Rights just wouldn't make sense without the strong emotions connected to them. Imagine a world in which we were all completely indifferent to any claimed rights. Isn't it true that no one would then have any reason to care about them, to respect them, to empathise, to feel a sense of entitlement, to feel guilt or remorse or horror or that it is simply wrong to break them? Would you not expect to see, in practice, a world without any rights at all?

Well, in spite of all of your lengthy replies and insinuations, and in spite of my "huffing", the bottom line is that no physics class in any formal educational institution would teach that it is in fact Schopenhauerian Will which makes things like beach balls and galaxies move, which is the thrust of what I was getting at, and we both know that that point is true, in spite of your inventive ways of dancing around it, which means, like it or not, that I was right. The negation was successful.

The next step would be to acknowledge that there's a reason for that, which would be that it's either redundant, or that it lacks the required support that the high standards of science expect.

You obviously have some gripe with the fact that much of philosophy is outdated and no longer seen as credible, and with the fact that I jumped in to point that out. That's too bad.

Ah, I think I see what you're getting at. So we've resorted back to insinuations of Scientism, and that I don't know enough about physics to have any input, or maybe that I can't think on my own two feet because I largely agree with what I do know of physics. The bottom line is that it was somehow wrong of me to have the gall to appeal to physics in my criticism, because you will react like I've pissed in your cereal, and start an agressive interrogation about what physics books I've read and whatnot.

You could have just said so, and in less words.

For me, these are goals. I often fail to live up to my own standards. I'll keep trying. — T Clark

Indeed. You just can't resist responding to my little pearls of aggression on occasion.

But in all seriousness, that was mostly good advice. Except for the part about finding fault. That's exactly what you should be doing. The less faults, the stronger the end product. The sooner they're identified, the sooner they can be addressed.

Your advice is a lot more detailed, but less punchy than what I would have said, which would be to get over it and move on.

I don't know, I guess you'd have to ask the guy who cites it. I couldn't say if he's knowledgable enough to list all those types of work, that's hard-sci, but maybe het gets close. — csalisbury

It just sounds a tad revisionist to me. Anyway, so Schopenhauer's great contribution was to take the findings of Newtonian physics, and give it a different name, "Will"? Is that about right?

No it's a kind of joke. It's not 'will' but 'force,', as S did, is just exchanging one word for another. — csalisbury

But for good reason, given that "will" is taken to be something quite different these days. It doesn't generally have the meaning that Schopenhauer attributed to it, or the meaning that Schopenhauer attributed to it according to Frank, anyway.

Good. Don't fetishize anything. Rovelli didn't and that's why, if he were a poster, and other posters were discussing, say, the Mahabharata, he wouldn't jump into say -- 'yet I won't find that in any physics book.' Instead he integrated it wonderfully. — csalisbury

Go on then, what's the Mahabharata supposed to be? The capacity for doing work, which exists in potential, kinetic, thermal, electrical, chemical, nuclear, or other various forms?

And the Ding an sich, let me guess. That's how fast an object is moving, a vector quantity that indicates distance per time and direction?

Dasein? Well that's obviously the mass per unit volume of any material substance.

I don't know. The way you ask that question makes me think you'd shut down Augustine and Heidegger as well. Yet Carlo Rovelli, no scientific lightweight, cites both favorably. It seems that well-trained physicists are able to see different tacks as approaching similar phenomena. In short, real scientists don't fetishize science. — csalisbury

I own two books by Carlo Rovelli. In one them he praises Democritus and the atomists, whilst criticising Plato. Yes, I would shut down much of Augustine and Heidegger, but maybe there are some saving graces of which I'm not aware.

You're suggesting that I'm "fetishising" science, just because I'm questioning why you'd turn to Schopenhauer over matters which seem to pertain to physics? Clearly I value philosophy, too, but not to an unreasonable extent. I don't fetishise philosophy.

There are different theories. I have a book on quantum gravity, for example. What's your point? You think that the philosophy of Schopenhauer would better explain things like gravity? (And it's a force, not a law).

The general basics of physics don't purport to give an explanation of their cause though, so why would you bring them up as though they do? — csalisbury

What? The cause of what? What are you referring to with "their"?

The force would be the cause. Physics explains that.