By the way, you have conceded the point expressed in the following question cum statement: — TheMadFool

False. I just didn't reply to it at first because it wasn't addressed to me.

If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)? — TheMadFool

This makes as much sense as "If bikes are fast why are there cars???!?!??!?". See my full reply.

Answer the question Khaled, friend, is Utopia possible? — TheMadFool

That wasn't the question. And it is an insignificant question for what I'm trying to say.

The question was:

is it possible to make life, on balance, happier than sadder? What say you? — TheMadFool

And the answer is: Obviously.

But my whole point is simply this: @schopenhauer1 Thinks that certain impositions are "not bad enough" to impose. Things become bad enough to impose above a certain level of "inescapability". Point is, it is possible to lead a happy life, or at least one that the individual thinks is worthwhile. And also, that life will be just as inescapable as one full of suffering. So by shope's standard, even a life you know will be good (by a utilitarian standard, or any other) would be wrong to impose from the outset. But that's ridiculous, no? A utopia is used to highlight this, nothing more.

What are the implications as far as dire circumstances if no X? — schopenhauer1

There are no consequences to not doing something. No need to work, no need to do anything you don't want to do. Let's start with that.

This is swinging to the other extreme. — TheMadFool

The way to show that ridiculous statements are ridiculous is to show their ridiculous consequences. The point is that a utopia is just as difficult to escape as life currently (only suicide works). But I don't think anyone would be against having children in a utopia. That would mean this standard isn't sufficient to tell apart wrong and ok impositions either.

If life is so pretty, why the heck is there religion, promising escape (nirvana) or a better deal (heaven)? — TheMadFool

Because it's not perfect. And those are ways to a better life supposedly.

Is it really veering from what I've described in past posts? — schopenhauer1

Seeing as you've refused to commit to any position no matter how many times I asked you "How do you differentiate between ok and wrong impositions", and instead preferred to "delineate the arguments" the whole time, yes it's a breath of fresh air.

I'll take this as a "yes". So your criteria, so far, is:

above a certain difficulty of escape (where escaping comes with dire consequences) inflicting something is wrong. — khaled

Ok, now another question, would having a child in a utopian society, where there is 0 suffering be wrong?

inescapable [set of challenges] you are putting someone else in that can't be opted out without completely dire consequences. — schopenhauer1

So above a certain difficulty of escape (where escaping comes with dire consequences) inflicting something is wrong. That's your current criteria?

No I'm not going to ask you what "dire" means and pretend that suicide does not qualify as a "dire" consequence, we can agree that it does. But just want to know if this is the current criteria by which you judge when an imposition is ok or not.

My whole point is that work is an injustice because it is an inescapable — schopenhauer1

But that's patently false. It is not inescapable. You've cited multiple ways to escape it:

free riding (making it other people's problem), or outright suicide. — schopenhauer1

Inescapable, etc. You can opt out of the surprise party if you really wanted. — schopenhauer1

You can also opt out of life if you really wanted. So "inescapable" doesn't seem to be it (in quotes because neither is inescapable). What else? Or are you saying a certain difficulty of escape is required for something to be wrong to impose?

Putting someone in this no opt out position is an injustice along with all the harms of life. — schopenhauer1

But we know and have agreed previously that not all no opt out positions are wrong to impose. So how do you tell apart the ones that are ok to impose and the ones that aren't?

Pretty much. — Banno

So you’re saying what we think is out there is what out there?

Well that’s ridiculous. There were plenty of things people thought were out there that weren’t and vice versa. Both individually and as a society.

The world is not what we experience, it is what is the case. — Banno

And now you’re saying that what we experience (what we think is out there?) is not what’s out there. I don’t get it.

then the rest of us either have to endure the effects of that stupidity - in a pandemic unnecessary sickness and death - or fight it. — tim wood

Or what I think is the best approach: Passive resistance.

Don't argue with them. Don't make a big deal about it. Just don't let people into your establishment if they're antivax.

People will commit to any ridiculous position in an online argument but once their livelihood is threatened, it's a whole different story. They make all these "arguments" but really, I think the main reason most antivax are antivax is laziness (and staggering irresponsibility). I bet you if McDonald's required you to be vaccinated to get food form there, the number of vaccinations in the US would skyrocket. A rational argument won't remove laziness or irresponsibility, creating an actual consequence will.

Without prejudice, if you've been campaigning to inject your whole community with something which you later suspect is either unnecessary or worse, harmful, aren't you in exactly the same boat? Aren't you going to pay an even heavier price for admitting they were wrong. — Isaac

That's not what I'm saying. To be pro-vax has no upfront cost. To be antivax has a huge upfront cost. It comes with ostracization and belittlement. After paying that, there is nowhere to go except further in the rabbit hole.

I'm not saying antivax people are antivax because if they're wrong there is a price to pay, I'm saying they're antivax because they already paid a huge price. It's hazing. Members that go through hazing to join a fraternity rarely ever leave, and will defend it with their dying breath. Otherwise that humiliation was for nothing.

it's doable as long as you don't give a shit -- but they won't play nice with you — Olivier5

I've had one conversation with one where I was the hostile one and they actually were pretty reasonable. He ended up citing me a post with 50 studies I haven't read. But in every other point we argued he admitted when he was wrong and was pretty reasonable. I haven't read those studies in depth, but I've skimmed them, and they were grasping at straws as far as I could tell.

They don't just calmly review the consensus opinion to conclude "Hmm not sure I can agree with that". No, they have chosen their camp in what they see as one of the most important battle of mankind, and they attack the other camp aggressively, and anyone defending it. Because they care. — Olivier5

Worth asking just what, exactly, they care about. I'll wager they do not know, and can only at best rant at any such question. — tim wood

It's hazing. They don't care about anything specific. But after paying the "price of admission" which consists of denying reality, there is no way they're leaving that camp.

the need to "bash one's opponent on the snout." — tim wood

I'm all for vaccines, but this doesn't help either.

I think there is something like hazing going on with anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers and such. They paid a very heavy price by disagreeing with the obvious and looking stupid to the majority. So now they can't go back and admit they were wrong. Or all that suffering and humiliation would be for nothing.

Further insulting or attacking them will only make it worse. In my experience, the best way to convince someone who is on the fence not to take the vaccine is to try and shove it down their throats. People are very hesitant to accept sound arguments when they are delivered rudely or condescendingly. And much more hesitant if delivered by force.

If you willfully participate in the ostracization of people for exercising their inalienable right to bodily autonomy, you were never a gentleman to begin with. — Tzeentch

Stop ostracizing people for exercising their inalienable right to free speech, it's ungentlemanly!

And yet the stuff "out there" does enter into the conversation. — Banno

What we think is out there is what enters the conversation. Unless you're saying they're the same thing?

The direction of fit here is reversed, in that we intend these words to be about whatever it is that is "out there". — Banno

Agreed, that is the intention. But we don't know when we have succeeded. All we know is that some models about what's out there work better than others.

We only know when our models have failed, not when they have exactly matched what's out there.

It's not luck, it's a process of eradicating versions that are dysfunctional. — Banno

Who said it's luck?

But apples are not the raw perceptual data they cause us to have. — Srap Tasmaner

Maybe. That would make you an anti-realist about apples. But you admit the independent existence of something other than yourself, namely, the raw perceptual data that we interpret as apples. That makes you a realist about raw perceptual data.

But there's no coherent way to talk as if we're not modeling — Srap Tasmaner

I agree. Some people seem to not think so. Namely, some realists about apples will say that we're not modeling when we talk about apples, we're directly reflecting reality. Best you'll get out of them is "we are modelling but our model is a direct copy of the way things actually are and this is known... somehow".

"It's the view that something exists regardless of what we say about ___." What on earth do we fill in the blank with? — Srap Tasmaner

The “raw perceptual data” Isaac was talking about. It’s the view the raw perceptual data exists regardless of what we say about it.

Point is just this: We don’t determine ____. There is something external to us that determines it. That’s realism.

The blank could be for example: “the taste of apples”. Or “the color of the sky”. Or “ethics”. And that would make you a realist about blank.

The whole point of modelling is that within the model, tables quite specifically count as real. Real is theory-relative. — Srap Tasmaner

And a realist about tables would say that tables are “really real”. No models. The existence of tables is a direct reflection of reality. Our model is a perfect map of reality in this case. A non realist about tables would say that tables are purely constructed by us, they’re nothing more than the model. There is no independent existence to tables.

I don’t care too much. If the model is useful, I’ll use it. I don’t care if it is a “true reflection of reality” or a social construct or whatever. What difference does that make?

Your existence is independent of your thoughts. You can think you exist. You can think you don’t exist. Either way you exist. That’s what I meant.

Same with the existence of your thoughts. Whether or not you think you think, you think :wink:.

Sure. But you’d be a realist about at least yourself or your thoughts.

Who is a realist about the world we see anyways? No one has been like that since electromagnetic waves or even sound waves were discovered. We can’t see either.

Evan if all we see is the way things seem to be to us, there may still be the way things are. — Banno

Sure. But it can't enter the conversation, and it can't be found out. Maybe the way things seem to us IS the way they are, but that just means we got lucky. We don't know when this is the case. So what difference does it make?

So a realist says the ball has a mass of 1kg; the anti-realist might say that saying that it has a mass of 1kg is useful, or fits their perceptions, but will not commit to it being true. — Banno

And both can work together in construction for decades, each harboring a seething hatred for the opposing position, and being the best of friends because neither knows the other's position.

They'll understand each other when they say "the ball is of mass 1kg".

Yeah, that's rather the problem I was trying to highlight, but from the other side of the coin. The anti-realist says "things are only as they seem to us to be", but that 'things are only as they seem to us to be' is itself a way things seem to them to be. We just don't seem to get anywhere using that line of thought. — Isaac

Yup. If I had to pick one it would be realism.

Does "whether or not stuff depends on what we think" depend on what we think? If it does, you're not really an anti-realist, as you admit realism is just as valid. If it doesn't you're a realist about something. — khaled

But all of those things (and states) are still unarguabley some way things seem to us to be. — Isaac

I just wonder what you're supposed to say to someone who replies "no" to this. Whether it be by saying:

Tell that to a corpse. Or to a quadriplegic. Or to an overheating planet. Or ... — 180 Proof

Or "go stand in front of a train" etc.

So if we're to talk about the difference between the way things seem to us and the way things 'actually are', we must first allow for the fact that 'the way things actually are' is still some way things seem to us. — Isaac

I’d say that any talk of the way things are is talk of the way they seem to be. Not that “the way things are is what they seem to be”. Though pragmatically that’s the same thing.

Problem is, both positions are convinced that they’re “actually” talking about the way things are, not just what they seem to be. No realist will say “it seems to me realism is the case”.

What I'm saying is that you never see outside of the mind-created world within which all the — Wayfarer

Ok. This is not a problem for realism. This a problem for someone who is convinced that “what we see is exactly as it is” but that’s not realism as said in the OP.

If it's something that nobody ever knows anything about, then it's not anything. — Wayfarer

Where did you get that? The “raw material of perception” is a cause of our perceptions. So we know it exists. In the same way we know electromagnetic waves exist without being able to see them. Because of their effects.

Apples don’t taste exactly how I want them to taste sometimes. If I was the ONLY source of my perceptions, I’d make them taste exactly how I want them to taste. But I can’t do that. So there must be SOMETHING that determines what an apple tastes like that is independent of me. That’s enough for realism.

Realism, as spelled out 'roughly' in the OP, is that stuff exists whether anyone knows about it or not. — Wayfarer

Yes. So to be fair, to assume the OP makes sense, this implies that something is something even if no one knows about it. Which contradicts the above quote.

I'm not following that. Anti-realism presupposes realism? Why? On one side we have that stuff is independent on what we say or think, on the other, that stuff is not dependent on what we say or think. How does stuff being dependent presuppose it not being dependent? — Banno

Does "whether or not stuff depends on what we think" depend on what we think? If it does, you're not really an anti-realist, as you admit realism is just as valid. If it doesn't you're a realist about something.

When you perceive something - large, small, alive or inanimate, local or remote - there is a considerable amount of work involved in ‘creating’ an object from the raw material of perception.

So, when you perceive X, X was in large part created by you. But X was created from a "raw material of perception" as well.

Are you saying even the "raw material of perception" is created? What's so raw about it then?

Realism is not the view that X exists regardless of what we say about it. It's the view that something exists regardless of what we say about it. You admit this when you say that X is created partly by us, and partly by a "raw material perception".

That you make a distinction necessarily means that the "raw material perception" was not created by us. Otherwise you wouldn't have mentioned it. You would have just said "When you perceive something, there is a considerable amount of work involved in making it up"

realism holds that ...stuff... is independent of what we say about it
— Banno

So, the role of the mind in creating the world should have some bearing on that, ought it not? — Wayfarer

Not really. Realism is the idea that there is stuff independent of what we say about it. It's not the idea that a specific object (say, the sky) is completely independent of our perceiving apparatus and that we are just passively receiving it.

You admit that there exists stuff independent of what we say about it here:

an object from the raw material of perception.

This "raw material of perception" exists regardless of what we say about it correct?

That we then add something to it to make a coherent world is not a problem for realism.

People tend to say so and so is natural or unnatural to support or condemn respectively, not realizing that they’re making a naturalistic fallacy.

And it is because we are trait equalizing the traits true of a given human to that of a given animal. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I could just name: "Is not a great ape" as the trait that animals possess that makes them ok to kill for food. There is no fundamental difference between saying something lacks X trait, and saying something has the trait "not X". For example: I could call someone "lazy". Or I could say they are "not productive". Exactly the same thing.

Let's say "Killable" is a trait that means: "Is not a great ape and does not possess an intelligence or level of consciousness comparable to or higher than humans."

Now I say that the trait that animals possess that makes them ok to kill for food is that they're "killable" as defined above.

human already has that property, and thus it cannot be given to them, and likewise the animal doesn't have the property, thus they cannot offer it as a trait to give. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Now it doesn't have the above problem. Humans do not have the property killable, and animals (the ones we eat for food) do have the property killable. See how easy it is to convert between these supposedly different categories? "Lacks trait X" is just another way of saying "Has trait Y". It's purely a language thing.

There aren't two separate categories here.

Btw, a large minority of humans are within the range of intelligence or consciousness comparable to that of agricultural animals. I’m not sure if framing it that way wouldn’t be another category error, but we’ll go with it anyway. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

It wouldn't be a category error it would be a logical error.

I'm saying it's ok to kill X for food if X is BOTH: Not a great ape (~A) AND Not within the range of intelligence (~I)

So it's ~A&~I = Ok to kill for food. So negating this (IE, the things that are NOT ok to kill for food are:) A OR I. As in one must either be a great ape, or possess the specified intelligence level. De morgan's law.

I'm pretty certain this large minority belongs to the great apes. So it wouldn't be ok to kill them for food.

Well, an easy one to start would be a god-like being, or an alien species with much higher intelligence, and probably the vast majority of sentient life throughout the universe, supposing there are some. Either way, I could cook up so many hypotheticals that I don’t know where to start. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Really? Ok, "Is not a great ape and does not possess an intelligence or level consciousness comparable to or higher than humans."

That should also deal with your alien hypothetical.

Note: Originally I wanted to write "greater than or comparable to" but got too lazy because I thought "There is no way he'd bring aliens into this right?"

I’m representing someone else’s argument. It is clear what they mean by it and I extended that clarity to you. If you do not wish to engage in a critique of my rebuttal, then that’s fine, but I’m going to spend my time with those who do. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I'm coming up with another rebuttal. One that does not require one to think that cannibalism is ok.

The question that was originally given asks you to name the trait, or set of traits, true of the animal that if true of the human would justify killing them for food. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Ah I see. My bad then. I don't understand why that needs to be the question though:

or you otherwise must provide a counter argument for one of the supporting premises to NTT by naming which traits justify the disproportionate attribution of moral value between humans and animals. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Any trait difference should suffice. As in, if I can name a trait that humans possess, that animals do not OR a trait that animals possess that humans do not, either should be usable as justification for the different treatment no? In any case, it's very easy to convert one to the other.

So instead of "Animals are ok to eat because they are not great apes", it becomes "Humans are ok to eat once they are no longer great apes".

So the trait true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food is: "Is not a great ape and does not posses an intelligence or consciousness comparable to humans"

On the latter answer, what if we imagined the person who you love, or enjoy, tolerate the most was turned into a pig, cow, or chicken. This applies the same logic, that if a being is a cow, pig, or chicken, then it is morally acceptable to kill them for food. So if the person you care about the most was turned into one of these animals would you thereby kill them for food. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

How exactly did this turning occur? If they lost their intelligence, personality, memory and body, with no hope of being turned back, then the person I care about is already dead. What's left is just a chicken.

I mean, sure, some people eat apes—also some people eat humans, however this is a minuscule, fractional subset of the general consumption of animals. To narrow down and focus on such an irrelevant subset of the general, more broader concern is to try to trivialize it, when what WE ARE CONCERNED WITH is THE BROADER VIEW. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

It’s analogous to objecting to arguments made that killing humans is wrong, by appealing to the fact that we kill humans who are murderers and child rapists. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I am implying that people who do such things are wrong. I'm not saying that "since some people eat apes eating animals is ok". I am saying "since these animals are not a great ape AND they do not possess an intelligence or consciousness comparable to humans, it's ok to kill them for food".

Just name the trait or traits true of animals that if true of humans would justify killing them for food. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

"Is not a great ape and does not posses an intelligence or consciousness comparable to humans"

What's the ridiculous conclusion?

Indeed. Especially when I have already defined the term. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

What you did was impose a definition that favors you when I'd already stated what I meant by it.

Your answers include: “Is a member of the Homo genus” this is a category error — Cartesian trigger-puppets

How so? What category am I mistaking with what other category?

it entailed the absurdity that It is ethical to kill genetically modified non-human humanoid beings — Cartesian trigger-puppets

If they are not of the same genus as us, they're not humanoid....

“Is not a cow/pig/chicken” again, category error, but conversely it entails all sorts of absurdities, namely that all non-cow/pig/chicken beings are immoral to kill for food (what of plants or bacteria?) — Cartesian trigger-puppets

The point of the example was to show that one could simply add anything they wanted to kill for food to the category. The list is expandable.

"Is a member of the great apes" so it’s ethical to kill Dolphins, Orcas, conscious androids, genetically modified hominids, extra terrestrial beings with greater sentience? — Cartesian trigger-puppets

No, but it's becoming a lot less ridiculous very quickly huh?

"Is a member of the great apes or possesses intelligence or consciousness comparable to humans". Now what?

We can keep doing this and I'll just take whatever valid exceptions you come up with and modify the set of traits accordingly to include them. Which is why I find it difficult to believe that one cannot come up with a set of traits that result in a non ridiculous morality.

Ok, name a few... — Cartesian trigger-puppets

"Is a member of the Homo genus". Or: "Is not a cow/pig/chicken". Or: "Is a member of the great apes".

however in common usage it generally refers to Homo sapiens, the only extant member. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

So if a Neanderthal appeared tomorrow you think people would say that they're not human and so, for instance, are not entitled to human rights?

It commonly refers to homosapiens because that's the only existing member. If other members existed it would refer to them too.

Also, this whole bickering about what "human" means is beside the point. The characteristic could simply be "Is a member of the Homo genus". Or slightly wider: "Is a member of the great apes". What's the ridiculous conclusion in this case?

In the hypothetical, the term "human" will be defined as modern homosapien. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Instead of trying to alter the hypothetical, why don't you just interact with it as it is stated. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Perhaps my wording is a bit confusing, however I do clearly state that — Cartesian trigger-puppets

human =/= homosapien.

Point is: There is countless ways to specify certain traits that don't lead to absurdities.

Suppose we genetically altered a subset of the human species so that they could no longer bear fertile offspring, thus making them a distinct species. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

"Human" doesn't necessarily mean homosapien. We had other cousins like neanderthals, who we would also call "human". It's a certain level of intelligence, bone structure, brain size, and a bunch of other factors.

It doesn’t. You should read the post in its entirety. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

Missed that.

However, it is purported that every trait, or set of traits, named in attempt to justify the disproportion of moral value logically entails a commitment to an absurd moral position — Cartesian trigger-puppets

I find this very difficult to believe. What about the trait "Is a cow"? That would entail a commitment to the position that it's justifiable to kill cows for food, and nothing else. I don't see how it can lead to absurd positions.

Moreover, in another such hypothetical world, we can imagine three traits that have been equalized: not being a member of human civilization, lacking moral agency, and not willing to reciprocate mutual cooperation with other humans. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

In considering the named traits, we can easily imagine a scenario of beings who lack all these traits, and yet most would find it absurd to condone killing them for food. Suppose that we discover an indigenous population of humans who reside outside of modern civilization, have no shared group morality, and are openly hostile towards other groups of humans. — Cartesian trigger-puppets

But these people don't lack moral agency, they just don't have a shared morality. They don't lack all the traits.

Why can’t the trait that humans have and animals don’t that makes killing animals for food morally justifiable simply be “Is not human”? Or simply “Is a cow”? Would that be arbitrary? Yes, but not contradictory.

And why does it have to be one trait to be named in the first place? Why can’t it be that when multiple traits are possessed then it becomes justifiable to kill the creature in question for food? For example: “Is not human and is not at a particular level of intelligence and is not…..”

I think most if not all of the ideological fools are ideological fools because they're actually egomaniacs.

They are desperate for recognition, and, when it stubbornly refuses to arrive, they are drawn to make increasingly extreme pronouncements, in the hope of finally being proved a dogma-busting, 21st-century Galileo.

But in their case it's more a "Loyal and noble crusader, fighting for the true ideology" rather than a dogma-busting Galileo.

Ultimately, is a daily severe suffering of a single hungry Yemeni child worth your daily happy time quota? Daily severe suffering of a single sentient animal? Your logical honest answer would be NO. Your delusional dishonest illogical ego-centric emotional would be YES. — RAW

Well I’d answer no. And I’m sure everyone else would as well. Because our happiness isn’t caused by suffering Yemeni children. But I’m curious. How can you arrive at this logically. Mind writing it out as a syllogism?

Same with efilism in general. You keep saying it’s logical. What’s the logical argument you employ that has the conclusion “Therefore no sentient life should exist”. As I said, I’ll accept your premises that life is awful and terrible. They still won’t logically lead to efilism.

This sounds something like “Why is pi equal to 3.14”?

It just is. I don’t see how it’s amenable to explanation. I’m in the camp that quantum randomness is real, ontological, not just an epistemological problem, though there are interpretations that have it be like the dice example. Pilot wave theory for one if I understand correctly.

Then again, I don’t know shit about QM.

Moral nihilism has a bad reputation, but isn't that what we are espousing? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I don’t think it makes it all the way to moral nihilism. Sounds more like humanism. The source of morality is humans and their preferences, not some “answer” that’s “out there”. Though there are certainly answers that fit more or fewer preferences. And ones that are sustainable and others that are not. Etc

So a takeaway here, there is something about the forced game, similar to the "happy slave" that is not right, or suspect. — schopenhauer1

So what is it?

I don’t think anything’s wrong with a happy slave in the first place. Neither does @Down The Rabbit Hole either from the sound of it. Idk about the others.

Y'all's take: As long as there are sufficient choices in life (for surviving, entertaining, relationships with others, and even killing yourself) that is freedom. — schopenhauer1

Seems close enough.

The option for suicide, homelessness, or dying in the wilderness, doesn't make the forced game any more fair or right to make people play. We are not "panning out" far enough to see the limited choice of the game of life. — schopenhauer1

So what does a fair game that’s ok to impose look like? And what does one that’s unfair look like? How do you tell the difference? Same ways of asking the question.

You asked everyone these questions but you haven’t answered them yourself.

What are your answers to all of this? — khaled

The people (mostly) like the game, have taught their children to like it, and are comfortable in it. In fact, the degrees of decisions by the generations that came after resemble life in all but origin. — schopenhauer1

I have given you the reactions over time. This is probably true of the original people maybe — schopenhauer1

So let me get this straight: An evil, despicable, villain is kidnapping people and giving them lives that all of them like? I thought you said something about an obstacle course at first. You’re now saying even the first victims liked the move. I’m assuming this means they like it so much they don’t mind what they lost to get to it? As in this doesn’t happen:

Worst case scenario: They were pretty successful in life and so miss out on a lot (bad). — khaled

In that case: no not a villain. I’d assume you have to hurt someone or attempt to do so to be a villain.

So you are now going down that slippery slope it looks like that if someone didn't exist at time X, it's okay to do something in time Y to them when they will exist. — schopenhauer1

No. What I said was: The villain is taking you from situation X to situation Y, and Y is either worse or equal to X. That is not justified because X was pretty good. However, putting someone into situation X is fine, since situation X is pretty good.

If Y was much better than X, he wouldn’t be a villain.

I mean in this logic, as long as a slave was born into conditions of slavery, it's okay because the slave knows nothing else. — schopenhauer1

If the slave doesn’t, and won’t mind the conditions, it’s absolutely ok.

the question is supposed to highlight as to what degree of freedom a human must experience in order for a forced situation to be legitimate. You aren't answering that one. — schopenhauer1

I am. You can see me quoting each one, and responding. But again: There is no set amount. It depends purely on what the victim thinks of their situation. You don’t think this is the case. You think there is a required degree of freedom for an imposition to become trivial/non-trivial. So, again:

What are your answers to all of this? — khaled

I haven't seen you in any other mode when dealing with me. — schopenhauer1

Maybe it simply seems combative to you because it attacks a core belief of yours. I haven’t cursed (really). Or accused you of sharing accounts. Or accused you of being a bot. Or accused you of being a troll. Or accused you of being uncharitable. And I’m the one that’s combative?

Maybe consider that when I get combative towards you it’s because you accuse me of ridiculous shit when I’m trying to be cordial.

Actually, please tell me what I should’ve edited in that last post to make it non combative and I’ll do so from now on. I don’t understand what makes it combative.

Try engaging other posters too. Seem to be particularly targeting my posts.. — schopenhauer1

And you’re notorious for your presence in every part of the forum and you never ever ever spam the same topic?

I go for antinatalism posts. You post nothing but that. And when you don’t, surprise, I’m not there. And I also go to other posts occasionally. I’d bet money that the percentage of your posts relating to AN far exceeds mine.

Baseless accusations like these are what make it difficult to maintain cordiality.