Whats fallacious about that statement, because it isnt that its affirming the consequent. You are misusing that term in your comments, hence I immediately asked what YOU mean by affirming the consequent. You confirmed that you use the standard definition, but then you again misapplied it (to my lies for lives example) so Im confused.
Did you mean that some other fallacy is being made in my lies for lives example? What fallacy?

So for example if I justified lying to someone in order to save 1 million innocent peoples lives...thats a fallacy?

Right, using my phone so auto-correct got me in that.
So you going to answer the question? It would have been pretty easy to make a pedantic correction AND actually answer the question. Give it a try, I believe in you.

Hate to disagree with you again considering your gentlemanly response but I dont think your argument is void. I think there is some interesting things to say about the end justifying the means.

What do you mean by affirming consent?

-Actions are considered good or evil (right or wrong) based on their goal which is being accomplished by the consequences of that particular action. — Lawrence of Arabia

This is actually just a reformulated way of saying the ends justify the means, so it doesnt work as an argument/premiss. This is your conclusion disguised as a premiss. Someone could just as easily assert the opposite, that actions are good or evil independent of the goal.

-If the goal being accomplished is good then something is considered right. — Lawrence of Arabia

No, the goal being good only establishes that the goal is good. Individual actions towards any goal (be that goal good or bad) can be moral, immoral, or amoral. Walking for example is something you might do as part of the process of something virtuous (work at a charity or a soup kitchen maybe) but that doesnt make walking morally good. Its amoral. By your model, anything done towards a good goal is likewise good, but again this is just asserting your conclusion as part of your premiss.

- As I stated earlier, we need context to judge an action. — Lawrence of Arabia

While I tend to agree, there are moral systems under which that is not the case. A principal based approach is like this, for example.

-That context is a goal, which shows why someone did something. — Lawrence of Arabia

Just including this for completeness sale, this could be merged with the previous one, very nearly redundant.

-Therefore, we measure actions based on the goal being accomplished. — Lawrence of Arabia

No sir, “therefore” nothing. This doesnt and shouldnt pertain only to morality and so its not part of a moral argument. Your previous premisses do not establish this, so no “therefore” for you Im afraid.

-The ends justify the means. — Lawrence of Arabia

So obviously I do not agree with your conclusion here. The ends CAN justify the means, but I dont see how thats always the case.

Well youre no fun, I dont disagree with any of that. Rude ;)

Does that include those whose happiness is born of other peoples suffering or impeding their pursuit of happiness with consequencial unjustified murder of their lives, livelihoods and status?

Or what about those whose greatest joy is in hoarding happiness away only for themselves on the backs of stronger individuals than they whom they allow to live in severe hardship? — Mark Dennis

Well then you have competing pursuits of happiness, and unless you want to embrace conflict then some kind of agreement between the people involved will have to be made. Not that you asked me but I had an answer ;)

Ok, it seems like you have a different, more specific idea of what suffering is.
You said suffering is what makes people want to kill themselves. That seems pretty stringent. As I said, there are certain kinds of suffering, you are just describing the most extreme kind. Would “extreme suffering” or something like that perhaps be more accurate for your purposes?
Thats under the purview of #1.
Your response to my points about 2 and 3 are about the truth of determinism, basically.
It could be that the body doesnt reduce to physical laws or something, that there is some unknown or supernatural part of living things but just because its possible doesnt mean we can build anything on that idea. I have no good reasons to think that is the case, so Im not going to accept it as a premiss for anything else I believe.

Well first of all I don’t think a world without suffering would be better, so I disagree with your metric for a better world. Some suffering is necessary, adversity is needed for growth, catharsis etc. Rather I think its just certain kinds of suffering that leads to a bad/worse world.
Your #1 cause of suffering, competition of life, is very broad so I couldnt agree with it. Some things about competing life could or should be eliminated and others cannot or shouldnt be prevented. I think you’d have to break this down a bit more for it to be a good metric.
#2 - i do not understand how this causes suffering except in the sense that someone suffers because things are not the way they want them to be. The truth hurting is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated.
#3 - same thing as 2. This is not the kind of suffering that could or should be eliminated. If the truth is we do not somehow live on through the sorcery of a soul or somesuch, then so be it. Not being comfortable with the truth is not the kind of suffering we could or should get rid of. Depending on how this “afterlife” works, it could very well lead to more suffering and of a kind much, much worse than the mere suffering of the truth about life.

So before we get to your solutions I think that you have problems in your premises. Those are my thoughts.

I disagree, I think that what he is interested in is preaching, not discussing. Ive watched him interact with others, and he doesnt listen or engage, he repeats the exact same talking points over and over and changes the angle of approach just enough so he can throw up a facile claim that he’s actually doing philosophy. Its obvious to me what he is doing.
Here is a test for you to try: do not engage him in any anti natalist posts or threads. Take note of any threads/posts he tries to subvert into an antinatalist thread and do not engage those either. Then, observe how the threads/posts left over for engagement equal 0. Thats how you can tell when its preaching, and this is.

Lol, I know. How this doesnt count as preaching and against forum regs is beyond me.

Stop feeding him for christs sake.

Depends on the 3 year old. Generally I would expect there to be things... parents, siblings or friends that care for the child, most of the time even a 3 year old brings something to the table, a collection of traits that net benefits for society or will benefit society. I dont have a very high bar, meaning Im not asking much more than just not ruining things for other people.

I feel that I might not have made by post clear enough.

Taking the life of a murderer or rapist is fine with you. That’s because you regard their crime as heinous. And what was their crime? It was the assault on the sanctity of someone else’s life.

For you that deserves the death sentence. That is because you regard life to have intrinsic value and it should not be interfered with in any way by another. — Brett

Its not the assault on lifes sanctity, the crime is only heinous if the life has merit, otherwise I don’t really care.
I think we are just using terms a bit differently.
Edited to add: i do not think that life should not be interfered with in any way, and its exactly because I dont see life as having sanctity that I lack any real concern for the lives of murderers.

What would you regard as ‘merit’? — Brett

The things about that life that are worthwhile or valuable to society, for example a virtuous person, or a skilled person. This opposed to life itself being whats worthwhile/valuable.

Its the merit of life that gives it value, lives with no merit I dont really care about. So its not intrinsic. Id say the opposite.

I imagine my threshold for what justifies taking a life is below the average persons, perhaps well below. Rapists, pedophiles, murderers, slavers, sex traffickers...The loss of any of those lives would be perfectly fine to me.

Yes, if I had a good reason. Self defence for example.

That poster has been banned.

I would say something like joy or happiness has intrinsic value.

Ok, thanks.

Thanks for that post, appreciated.

And excuse the festive sarcasm. The post in question was simply a non-sequitur. The implication you suggested didn't follow from anything I said. — Baden

Its hard to tell online when someones being lighthearted, its mostly interaction and experience that indicates when a person might be having a little fun with things. Consider your impish impulses duly noted, so long as you return the favour in kind. :wink:

Or read the guidelines. — Baden

I did read the guidelines when I first arrived, but obviously there is going to be some variance in application between different mods, thats what im trying to track.

It's understandable that it came off to you in a certain way. But there's not much I can do about that except point to his comment history. You are not on our radar re bans and as far as I know haven't been. — Baden

Thats good news, but Im still interested in not getting on that radar in the future as well.
If you could indulge me a bit further, Id like to offer an example id like b your take on.
So there is that “colorblind” thread, where race is being discussed. Ive said things in that thread that got me called a racist (I think a bigot as well if I remember right), and strictly speaking that is ban worthy, right? No mods said anything to me about it, but then this omni guy puts out something much more mild and he got banned...so I thought maybe I’d just slipped under the radar but still would be at risk should I be noticed by a mod the next time. Hence im feeling it out here.
If you are familiar with the colorblind thread, do you think I was playing with fire with the ideas I expressed?

Im not taking offence, and im not intending to argue so much as get clarity...as I mentioned to Baden the banning came off to me in a certain way.
Anyway, its nice to know my comments are constructive to someone at least!

Right, you mentioned that already. My purpose in quoting those posts was to review them and perhaps clarify them but also to understand what it is you think I was too dim to comprehend.
What exactly was your Christmas bulb comment referencing? Those posts?
As to what Im potentially allowed/not allowed to say, I meant in the sense that a moderator (I guess you specifically in this case) would consider ban worthy. Since I sometimes say unpopular things and sometimes make posts that are less than polite shall we say, and since I do not want to be banned, I am curious about the kinds of things people get banned for. This one seemed to happen quickly, and at the behest of another poster whose only reasoning is that he didnt like the opinion expressed. (Although I understand that might not be the case, and that you have more information than I do with which to act upon)

Well where do you think the intrinsic value comes from?

No, I don’t think so.

No, not really. I assume by religious purpose you mean purpose given by some kind of divine authority?

I think thats at least part of it yes. That is one reason given for the sacredness of life, that life has been endowed by god or gods with intrinsic value. It doesnt look like anyone wants to make that claim though...so where does life's intrinsic value come from? (Contrasted with life having value for that particular lifes merit.

Yes, I know Badens stated reasons for banning the guy. I was asking you, not him. I was careful not to mix up his banning with your call to intervention, That was what was intended by including “or otherwise dealt with by mods” but I see now that I could have been more explicit.

Sure, Ill guess as to which posts you meant me to review, correct me if these aren’t the comments you are referring to.

You said:


“I looked through his history. He didn't make the grade. I don't really know much about his opinions.“

So you looked at his posts, which is what I thought you meant by “history”. Then you say you didnt know much about his opinions.
So I said:

“He didnt state any opinions in the history you “looked” through? How does that work?“

Since it seems dubious that you were able to properly judge the quality of the posts without “much” noticing what those posts said, I wanted to know how that works. How did you miss his opinions but locked down his post “quality” so thoroughly that you were comfortable banning the guy?
Im not sure why you think you needed to be snarky with your response, Im just asking questions. I want to know what im potentially allowed/not allowed to say, thats all.

Its not a personal attack, and its not about Manson and the sort of batshit comment that Omni-guy made about him. Its about whether or not you think people should be banned (or otherwise dealt with by mods) for opinions you do not like.

Oh, well thats your prerogative, I was honestly asking if that was something you advocated. (Ok, like, 20% making a point as well.)
I could see moderators not wanting really boring contributors.

Ive already read it, I was following along. You were more than voicing your opinion on what he said, you made an implicit call for moderator intervention.

Im not trying to be difficult here but what is the relevance of what you said to the banning?
Are you suggesting that he should be banned cuz he was boring, or had boring “opening moves”?

I didnt say that, I offered no opinion about his statements at all. I was noticing that your problem is his opinion, not his post “quality”.
What would a show of hands matter? Are you trying to get people to agree his opinions are bad, to reinforce your own opinion about his opinions being bad? Why? You are entitled to your opinion, regardless whether or not you can get it popularised. I think everyone should be so entitled, din’t you? Or is it just the opinions you like that should be allowed?

Injustice against Manson? Yeah, that's some Helter-Skelter, racial wars, end of the world poop. — Wallows

Ya, his opinions. You wanted Baden to intervene because you didnt like his opinions.

He didnt state any opinions in the history you “looked” through? How does that work?