oh I completely forgot about you sorry

I’ve said that I believe existence has an underlying impetus, but that’s not the same thing at all. — Possibility

What's the difference? They sound the same to me

I believe doing so will ALWAYS reduce suffering — Possibility

You can't reduce suffering to below zero yes? Antinatalism proposes a method for reducing suffering to 0. You can't beat that

that procreation is ‘forcing’ others into existence and suffering against their will, and therefore violates the negative ethics of ‘don’t use force/aggression’ and — Possibility

That wasn't my argument

‘don’t harm’ — Possibility

This was

I’ve argued that a sound ethical system would not contradict its own principles — Possibility

Where do my arguments do that?

positive ethics and negative ethics must work in harmony, — Possibility

How? They will contradict each other by definition

I’ve also argued that these principles of force/aggression and harm will ALWAYS break down in application to reality - but everyone seems to just sweep that aside as if it’s insignificant — Possibility

I didn't, because I didn't use that principle. The only thing I swept aside was the idea that if an action takes place before the person to be harmed exists that it is allowed

Given that Antinatalists often feel that even ordinary lives are bad, — TheHedoMinimalist

AHHHHHHHHHH. Well you're not wrong but that's not all of us.

She reasons that as long as she donates enough money to Project Prevention that prevents more people from being born than the people that she creates, it is ok for her to have children. — TheHedoMinimalist

Thats called "license to sin" in psychology and it makes no sense. She could've donated the same amount if not more if she didn't have a child

I think Bob's case is moral though

I think this is what always happens when some movement becomes popular. People start seeing the opposing side as "fashionable" and start following it blindly to "distinguish themselves from the crowd" not realizing the irony of what they're doing

I didn’t say they should be punished. I don’t care if they are punished or not. What’s important is to acknowledge that they are doing something morally wrong by not intervening — Congau

We punish people that we see as doing wrong things. By "shouldn't be punished" I mean "they didn't do something wrong"

But when the possibility of acting comes very close to you and the amount of inconvenience it costs you is very small — Congau

How do you know those conditions have been met by someone? Maybe the guy COULDN'T turn the kid around and save him from drowning because of some disability

Actually the law also sometimes identifies a duty to act — Congau

This is not an argument. The law also specifies that suicide is illegal. Also I skimmed through that Wikipedia page and it clearly says "In tort law, similarly, liability will be imposed for an omission only exceptionally, when it can be established that the defendant was under a duty to act." Where was the "duty to act" for the two cases we mentioned? "Duty to act" usually applies to people getting payed to act, for example, a police officer could be deemed guilty for not attempting to stop a robber or calling for reinforcement

makes sense. Idk why I chose those names

I told you my decision already: it depends on the patient but I lean towards pulling the plug. What I don't know the answer to is which of two strangers close to a third stranger should have control over the third stranger's future. I cannot conceive of a situation where I would have to make that decision

nobody else would read end-to-end. — god must be atheist

And this would ensure that people would not do something else. — god must be atheist

Wot?

By that logic you’re saying blind people are incapable of experiencing. — I like sushi

No they're incapable of experiencing the experience that showed most of us what a "line" means. Aka seeing a line drawn and someone pointing to it and calling it "line." Which SHOULD mean they will never be able to do geometry because they cannot see lines or points by your argument

Tell me, what experience is needed to understand what a "line" is?

you haven't given me evidence that conceiving of things such as "line" is impossible without experience. By that description, blind people should never be able to do geometry because they won't be able to conceive of lines having never seen a line. Also what about numbers. I find it hard to believe that one cannot conceive of numbers without sensory experience

yes which is why "yellow" and "banana" are both non primal.

ok

I don't see how 'shape' would be 'primal' in your terms — mcdoodle

Anything defined by primal concepts is a primal concept, because you could've come up with the definition yourself without any sensory input

Personally I'm wary of 'etc'. Just what is included and excluded by an 'etcetera', and how am I to know? — mcdoodle

Any words whose definitions yo could've come up with without sensory input

you're interpreting it in the worst possible way. By "go in circles" I mean go nowhere not that they're circular (as I've said already). Notice how I didn't say your arguments go nowhere, I said the POST goes nowhere, which means the replies go nowhere. Most arguments I see you have with people there devolve into yelling matches where neither side can convince the other. So as you can see I haven't said anything about your arguments in your OPs.

You want a fight, that's why you're seeing a fight. I don't mean to bash your posts but if you're going to insist I am then I see no point in replying

. is location in space — christian2017

"Location" and "Point" are synonyms. And notice how the definition of point only employs primal words

a line is an infininte of the above (marked as .) that all are in line with two relatively "extreme" points — christian2017

Again, only uses primal words

very often have elaborate definitions. — christian2017

I'm not denying that, I'm just saying that these "primal words" define each other and don't need input from the outside

only you see this as a fight

:up: you put it better

mentioned above "primal concepts" only involve assigning names to objects. I might have used the word "understand" somewhere above in re "primal words" as if there's a meaning there that needs to be understood but as it turns out "primal words" are meaningless — TheMadFool

I just don't like the language used here. By this language a triangle is meaningless amd cannot be understood

whatever you say man

These are the first words a baby hears, repeatedly hears, and later understands by way of visual and other sensory verification of the phonymal string's cognitive image — god must be atheist

But all of those represent things that exist. Things the baby couldn't have known without seeing them. A baby knows what a "shape" or a "line" is though when he's born. The only problem is to relate those concepts to their words.

whatever you say man

So what you're describing as 'primal words' actually goes a lot deeper than simply words. The triangle, which you mention as an example, is a concept — Wayfarer

Yes and "primal words" are words describing concepts. Non primal words describe things, like a fridge

good luck with finding some foundational collection of 'primal words' in terms of which everything else can be understood. — Wayfarer

I cannot. Because primal words only define other primal words. You cannot go from an understanding of shapes, space, lines and points to understanding what a fridge is

We cannot ‘conceptualise’ ANYTHING a priori — I like sushi

Not even a point in space? Or a triangle?

In any case I must necessarily refer to experience to understand ‘line’ — I like sushi

What "experience" did you refer to in your definitions? You only used points, shapes space, etc

without sensory input sensibility is mute — I like sushi

See, you keep saying this but I disagree.

"go in circles" is just a figure of speech. I didn't mean circular argument. Similar to "go nowhere." I wasn't trying to bash your posts chill.

The statistics for the aggregate outcome are not an explanation of the particular outcomes. — GeorgeTheThird

I know. But if you have 10 quintillion coins the deviation will be negligible which is why I said quantum mechanics predicts the behavior of aggregates of particles correctly 99.999999999% of the time so has it really failed?

I could argue for it, but I want to hear your explanation first. — Congau

My basic premise is: if he/she didn't cause it, they cannot be punished for not stopping it. Simply because: it's not their fault. Why are you assuming I need to justify MY premise? You're the one proposing that people should be punished for not stopping actions they didn't cause. So if someone was robbing a store and I didn't intervene am I doing something wrong?

True, but I was just turning around your argument. The same applies to what you’re saying. How can you harm nothing? — Congau

You're not harming nothing when you have a child. You're clearly harming the individual born. Sure the ACT of conception itself doesn't harm anyone at the time it is done but that doesn't mean it should be allowed. In the same way that hiding a bear trap in a public park doesn't harm anyone at the time it was set but still shouldn't be allowed (because in both cases the action WILL harm someone)

Well, some people sometimes say: “I wish I had never been born”. If that’s possible, one could also say: “I’m glad I was born”. I think most people would choose the second sentence. — Congau

True. So what?

If the student still doesn’t agree or understand, I could do it even more slowly and elaborate until he gets it. — Congau

And if they still don't? You keep assuming you can convince anyone of anything. That as long as you explain it slowly enough everyone will agree. I don't think that's the case at all.

oh ok sorry. That's what you meant

But then you seem to have backed away with the zero conclusion. Which still leaves the victim caught between — Brett

Yes it does. I don't know what to do in the scenario you posited. I just don't

Star wars: Knights of the old republic 1 and 2
Skyrim
Civilization
Dishonored (all of em)
League of Legends (Love hate relationship)
Prince of Persia (all of em)

But then you seem to have backed away with the zero conclusion. — Brett

What does "backed away with the zero conclusion" mean?

by first question I meant this:

Are you asking who should as in: "In any given situation should the spouse or parents take priority" or as in: "Which do you side with the spouse or the parent"

If it's the first: idk
If it's the second: I am leaning towards the parents but it really depends on how hellish hell is — khaled

I don't think how close you are to the victim should have any effect in the extent to which you should have control over her life. That extent is 0 for everyone

No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any individual particle event. Therefore, whenever someone says, "God has caused this event", — GeorgeTheThird

The materialist can say "No natural cause has been found for the outcome of any event so God didn't cause this either"

Is what banno is saying I think

Yes, it completely fails to explain why the aggregate of particles behaves predictably even though not one of the individual particles behaves predictably. — GeorgeTheThird

That's just false. It does so through statistics. Say in economics: you have 1 billion humans in a simulation. Even if you give each human a small chance to behave against his programming, the overall trend of 1 billion humans will behave the same way as without that chance. When you have a small chance for deviation in a huge sample size the deviation doesn't do much.

The question is how order at the macro level comes out of complete chaos at the individual particle level. — GeorgeTheThird

That's a purely statistical question.

‘Suffering’ is also a subjective concept of value, which is commonly negative in relation to the individual to whom it refers. — Possibility

Incorrect. I define suffering as "any experience you value negatively and wish to avoid". In other words: whatever experience you value negatively. So it's not just "commonly negative" it's always negative. So I don't need to deal with this:

So anything you can KNOW from this statement is entirely dependent on the value attributed to each element by each individual — Possibility

Because the word "suffering" will mean different experiences for different individuals.

An individual is as much a concept as existence. That we only talk about humans as having a ‘will’ and then prioritise that will is a symptom of anthropocentrism in how we conceptualise our experience. — Possibility

Ok then existence is a concept made up by another concept. A concept squared. The point is "existence" doesn't have a subjective experience as far as we know. Do you think existence feels hurt when someone doesn't have a kid? If not then why should we prioritize existence's "goal" over our own?

continuing to ignore, isolate and exclude the subjective experience, goals and will of others as it suits us. — Possibility

Existence isn't an "other". It's not a human

What our ‘suffering’ (from prediction error) and impending eco-crisis demonstrates is that the individual is NOT more important than existence — Possibility

Let me unpack this a bit. So you're saying our suffering due to not taking care of the environment shows that existence is more important than the individual? How exactly?

All it shows is that had we focused on "serving the goals of existence" more we wouldn't have messed up the planet as much and wouldn't have suffered as much. That's completely different from saying that we SHOULD "serve the goals of existence". You can't derive a should from an is. The statement you provide is an is (we would've been better off if we had focused on sustainable development more in line with "existence's goals") and we cannot conclude from it a should

that we are an integral part of ‘something’ broader, which we are too self-absorbed to acknowledge because we might be humbled by it - and that might cause us to ‘suffer’ even more. — Possibility

I understand that we are an integral part of a wider natural system. Why does that mean we should serve said system?

That ‘the individual is more important than existence’ is a gross misconception that causes more suffering than it can hope to remove — Possibility

Really? It ends up removing all of human suffering that would have occurred from now until our extinction if implemented correctly. I say that's a lot of suffering removed at the relatively small price of a single generation suffering

If we are certain of nothing else, we are certain that something exists. I’m thinking we should focus on that first. — Possibility

Ok. Something exists. So we should reproduce?

That the individual is more important to the individual is obvious. But the individual is just another concept drawn from how we perceive reality. — Possibility

Well I'm the individual so why should I care about anything that is not as important to me as me?

You're not making a dot of sense imo. So, Tim is killed by a headshot - it kills him instantly. You're saying that's not a harm — Bartricks

I'm not saying that's not harm. Tim didn't want to die did he? He also didn't want to experience the pain that leads to dying (not that there is any in this case)

Please explain how I can have an instrumental reason to avoid something that will not harm me. — Bartricks

When did I say that? Getting killed will harm you, death itself doesn't. As to why you avoid death or getting killed? Because your ancestors that did so survived and the ones that didn't did not.

So you don't think it is true that we have reason to avoid killing ourselves and others? — Bartricks

You're changing the statement. You've made it a practical question now. We have plenty of reasons to avoid killing ourselves and others the major one being: we evolved to avoid those actions. That doesn't say much about the morality of the act. It's more apt to say "We likely won't kill ourselves or others"

That's just incoherent. — Bartricks

That's just incorrect. Getting killed =/= death. One is a process the other is a state resulting from said process. They're not even the same category of things. Getting killed harms us. Death doesn't (because we'd be dead and because it's a state not a process)

But death clearly is a harm, for it's self-evident we have instrumental (and perhaps moral) reason to avoid it in our own case, and certainly moral reason not to visit it on others (extreme circs. aside). — Bartricks

Incorrect. We have an instrumental reason to avoid getting killed. We are avoiding the transition from life to death. But once someone is dead it's obviously not a burden anymore.

It is irrational to reject a self-evident truth of reason — Bartricks

Oh so: "We should avoid killing ourselves and others" is "self evident truth" but "There is no afterlife" is "a mere article of faith"

I think "We should avoid killing ourselves or others" is a convenient evolutionary instinct and nothing more.

reason represents death to be a harm to the one who dies — Bartricks

Getting killed is a harm to the one getting killed. Death cannot be a harm to the one that is dead (because he's dead, he doesn't exist anymore)

So you feel that the parents are acting more in the interests of the victim than the husband? — Brett

Probably yeah. (Again, depends on the victim)

Who has this right over her future; the man who loves her or the women who gave birth to her? — Brett

Now you're asking the first question to which I answered: I don't know
Under normal circumstances no one would have the right over her future but I don't know about this scenario

I think in this scenario you should try to act as you believe the patient would have acted and I think most people would want their life support cut off in that scenario (which is why I said depends on the person)

So you're asking who I side with, the parents or spouse? Again, depends on how hellish hell is and what I know about the person. Though I side with the parents on this one

c'mon you know that was a typo

As an antinatalist I wouldn't choose any life for anyone so this doesn't tell me much

To be honest, I think there should be an official way to deal with these situations in the first place. People should be able to write a "bearable life standard" where they specify the degree of injury overwhich they want their lifesupport to be unplugged. Just remove the whole sticky ethical dilemma by making them take the decision beforehand. And maybe introduce a yearly reminder to update the standard so people don't forget