No, I haven't, where are you getting this from? — darthbarracuda

Your own damn words!

It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. — darthbarracuda

Here you acknowledge that lemons do need to exist before making lemonade. The duration of their existence is irrelevant. Whether they existed a million years or a millionth of a second before making lemonade, they still exist before.

This conflicts with the following statement (your original statement):

Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade — darthbarracuda

I did not contradict myself. I have been consistent. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade, they only need to exist at the moment of lemonade-making. — darthbarracuda

What the deuce is your problem here. You have made both of the following statements:

1. Lemons do not need to exist before making lemonade

2. Lemons do need to exist before making lemonade.

These are mutually incompatible statements. It's not possible for them both to be true at the same time. Only one option is true, which is the second. Therefore, you need to stop making the first claim.

Yet the epicurean position is precisely that death cannot harm the person themselves because a person does not exist after they die. — darthbarracuda

Then to hell with the Epicurean position! I never said I was an Epicurean.

It seems ad hoc to require someone exist before a harm for something to count as a harm but not require that they exist after a harm for something to count as a harm. — darthbarracuda

You're not listening to what I'm saying. To be harmed requires that a person exist. Birth cannot harm anyone, because no person exists for it to constitute a harm. Death can harm someone, because it always occurs to people who exist. Things that are nonexistent do not die.

No, I didn't. Read that again. — darthbarracuda

You contradicted yourself, and I've shown why. Telling me to "reread" what you wrote, instead of explaining why my assertion that you have contradicted yourself is wrong, does not, in fact, absolve you from contradiction.

So why cannot birth harm a person? — darthbarracuda

Because there is no person to harm, prior to it, like there is in the case of death.

This whole "argument" is going in circles, punctuated by emoji's and sarcastic poems. — darthbarracuda

Let me add that this comment itself perpetuates what you see as circularity, because it refuses to address what I'm saying.

Consider again, for a moment, the reason for my emoji. I said that lemons need to exist before making lemonade. You disagreed. But then you contradicted yourself and agreed with me that, to make lemonade, the lemons need to exist "before" doing so (whether by two seconds or a century).

I shouldn't have to spell this out, hence the emoji.

Right but a person doesn't exist after they died so how can it harm them. — darthbarracuda

You're asking how nonexistence can harm them, and I agree that it can't. Death itself harms the person, not the after death state, of which you refer.

This whole "argument" is going in circles, punctuated by emoji's and sarcastic poems. — darthbarracuda

Think that if you want. I've been quite consistent in my position this whole time. Nothing you've said has caused me to doubt it.

??? — darthbarracuda

Look at the word I bolded.

I meant specifically the person dying, not those around them. — darthbarracuda

Oh. Can the dying person benefit from or be harmed by his own death? Initially, I would say no and probably for the same reasons that I have given about birth. On the other hand, death is clearly different from birth in that an individual does exist prior to its occurrence. In that sense, death cannot but be a harm to that individual, since it results in that individual's bodily extinction, at minimum.

Yeah...no. — darthbarracuda

Hey dol! merry dol! ring a dong dillo!
Ring a dong! hop along! Fal lal the willow!

The history of a lemon's existence is irrelevant at the time of lemonade-making. It doesn't matter if it existed for a century or two seconds before. All that matters is that it exists at the moment lemonade-making occurs. — darthbarracuda

:-}

do you think people can be harmed or benefited by dying? Do you think it might help someone to be euthanized if they are suffering terribly? Even if they don't exist after the fact? — darthbarracuda

As for the first question, that depends on context. I agree in principle with the death penalty, for example. So I do think people can benefit from the death of an individual convicted of a serious crime, those people being the criminal's potential victims, were he not punished. I also think that some wars can be justified, in which case the people on the just side of the war would benefit from the enemy being killed. As for harm, I think a suicide's death, for example, can harm the friends and loved ones of the person who took his or her life. Fatal accidents can do so as well.

As for your second question, I'm not quite comfortable with euthanasia, even if the individual is suffering terribly. I don't think we have the right to take innocent life, no matter if that life is suffering (I'm not a consequentialist, in other words).

I've made it clear that my definition of harm does not require there to be an actual person existing prior to the harm. It requires only a counterfactual hypothetical person, "if there had been". — darthbarracuda

And your definition of harm is incoherent for this reason.

Pessimists think that being born itself is a harm — schopenhauer1

No, pessimists clearly don't all think that. I still consider myself a pessimist, but I don't consider being born a harm, strictly speaking.

The act of birth has nothing inherently harmful (except the physiological pain involved I guess), but rather than "birth" I should say "life" or "existence" itself- not the birthing process. — schopenhauer1

Ah, finally! This admission constitutes real progress in our discussion! :P

Now, this means that you are not an anti-natalist. Or, if you still think procreation is wrong, it means that you have some reason other than that birth is wrong for thinking procreation wrong. It would seem that that reason might be that you think life or existence itself is a harm. If so, then I'd want to see how that fact is used in reaching the conclusion, "procreation is wrong."

No one ever emphasized "birth" as the wrong. — schopenhauer1

Really? The subtitle to Benatar's book reads, "The Harm of Coming into Existence." The Wikipedia entry on anti-natalism says that it is "a philosophical stance that assigns a negative value to birth." Emphasizing birth as a harm is in fact the most typical claim made by anti-natalists. It's their raison-d'etre.

If someone is born, that person is exposed to structural and contingent harms where there could have been no person born who would be exposed to structural and contingent harms. I am not sure why you would disagree with this. — schopenhauer1

But I don't disagree with this. Never have. Once born, people are exposed to harmed. What I have consistently objected to is the claim that being born itself, that is, coming into existence, is a harm. It's not. It's rather the condition for being harmed. But arguments for anti-natalism depend on this claim, which means that, because it is false, anti-natalism is false.

I am going to walk away believing you mean that in jest. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Believe what you like.

that caused poor uneducated people in that time to be terrorized by fear and horror over the idea that they would end up there — Beebert

Do we really know this, though, or are we simply projecting what we think they would have thought onto them?

To gain and keep Control over the masses, by causing them, the fearful, sensitive and uneducated ones, to submit to The Church. All about power. — Beebert

Well, was there any alternative? Civilization basically collapsed when the Western Roman Empire collapsed, so don't underestimate the level of destitution and illiteracy this caused in Europe. It took monks many months just to copy a single book, if they weren't slaughtered and their books burned in a Viking raid, that is. Moreover, these "fearful, sensitive, and uneducated masses" voluntarily became Christians in most cases when missionaries came to their lands, so whatever control the Church exercised over them was already consented to by them. They also made up the Church, in that they built the churches, cathedrals, and monasteries, while their children became monks, nuns, and priests.

Could you please explain why HR people are to be laughed at and shunned? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Because they're in the business of brainwashing.

A policy statement has been made and everyone should be fairly clear about what is expected by this point. — Baden

You asked for opinions on whether certain of Agustino's comments were sexist and got mixed replies. The policy statement is not in question, but whether you are an adequate judge of what constitutes sexism. My hope would be that you let the person accused appeal their case, as Agustino has done in this thread, before removing posts.

As much as you are loathe to talk about our dear old friend Emptyheady, he is precisely the reason why I and others are suspicious of moderation here, especially when it comes to political and social issues. Mongrel told BC to go fuck himself earlier in the thread, apparently in jest. That post is still up. If Agustino told someone to do the same, would you also leave it alone? Judging by the discussion in this thread, it seems that a lot of people refuse Agustino the ability to make similarly "hyperbolic" statements. Instead, they read the worst possible motive into his posts. I have found that if you press Agustino on statements you find prima facie absurd or offensive, using the same hyperbolic method he employs, he will eventually acknowledge your criticism and revise his statements so that you understand what he's trying to say.

Now I know that at least Baden will delete his sexist crap. — Mongrel

But... this assumes you know what sexism is. If sexism means "whatever Mongrel and Baden deem to be sexist," then anything could be sexist, and that's a recipe for abuse.

Lemons don't need to exist "before" making lemonade. They just need to exist at the time of making lemonade. — darthbarracuda

It feels like you're pulling my leg now. If they exist at the time of making lemonade, then they existed before one made lemonade.

Yes, I know. As I said, I'm intelligent enough to know how to stay hired without accepting their brainwashing attempts and thus maintain my integrity.

HR people are not to be charmed but laughed at and shunned.

It won't work. I have too much integrity and intelligence.

Fine. You want to be able to throw around the label without actually having to define it. Don't choke on that cake.

I pity your female co-workers if you need that defined for you. — John Harris

You pity them, do you? Why, that sounds a bit sexist to me.

I should have. What's sexism?

Alas, no. Now, about my question.

Hey @Mongrel, could you actually define "sexism" for us?

Is that 'skepticism'? — Wayfarer

Yes.

The fact of the concentration of CO2 in the environment is empirical science. It's not the consequence of a left-wing conspiracy. and the suggestion that it is, is part of the attempt to discredit the science. — Wayfarer

This is a clear bait, and I'm not taking it. I explained my views as thoroughly as I can and so will leave it at that.

But why should I believe someone needs to exist before in order to be harmed? — darthbarracuda

Because it's self-evident. You might as well ask why lemons need to exist before making lemonade.

If I snapped my fingers and instantly fully-grown people appeared and were instantaneously tortured, would it be harmful to these people — darthbarracuda

Yes, torture harms people, people who exist. :-}

My view is that the evidence for human-induced climate change is unequivocal and undeniable, but that there has been considerable fear, uncertainty and doubt generated by various interest groups, including corporations and right-wing political groups. Their aim is to make it 'politicized and complex' and to sow doubt about the facts, and they've been successful in so doing, unfortunately. — Wayfarer

That's cool, and probably true, but not the whole truth, as I think there has been considerable fear, uncertainty, and doubt generated by various left wing political groups and by blackmailing tactics in academia, the aim of which is indeed to make the issue politicized and complex. So I hope you'll forgive me for being a skeptic. That being said, I am opposed to pollution and hunting and in favor of conservation and environmental sustainability.

Thank you.

a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards

Global and regional climate patterns do change and have changed during the timeframe mentioned. So I have no problem with this part of the definition. It's self-evident.

attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels

Here's where I am a bit more skeptical, not because I wish to deny the claim, but because I don't know enough about it to have formed a definite position. Climate science, like most other forms of science, is in fact rather complex. I certainly think humans have had an impact on the climate (how could they not?), but as for whether our burning of fossil fuels is "largely" responsible for global and regional climate change, I don't know. Most scientists say that this is the primary cause. But some of these scientists' research is paid for by ideologically driven interest groups, which is somewhat suspicious (though does not in itself invalidate said research). Scientists are also discouraged from research that might be critical of the consensus view, a profoundly anti-scientific practice, given that all major scientific breakthroughs and revolutions in the past have occurred due to some individual or individuals challenging the consensus view. That, too, is somewhat distressing.

A minority of scientists disagree with the consensus view and publish research in opposition to it. Some of these scientists' research is paid for by ideologically driven interest groups, like the fossil fuel companies, which is suspicious (though, again, does not in itself invalidate said research). Other scientists have risked their reputations by challenging the consensus who are not paid for by any such groups. They seem sincere in their pursuit of the truth, but they are in the minority. In sum, I am not one to normally be skeptical about what most scientists take to be the case, but I find this particular issue to be so politicized and complex that I cannot in good faith assent to the claim in question. That is to say once more, I can neither affirm nor deny that climate change is to be "attributed largely to the increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide produced by the use of fossil fuels."

But there is - the person who is being born. — darthbarracuda

A most ambiguous reply. Do you remember what I said about equivocation? You've used the present progressive tense here, which can be used to describe either what is happening now or what will happen in the future. If you meant the former, then we must be talking about a being that already exists, in which case, we're not talking about coming into existence. If you meant the latter, then we're not talking about any person that exists, for there can be no person that exists before existing.

Why can't you give me a definition of climate change? How am I supposed to affirm or deny something, if I don't know what it is? I've not given you an unreasonable request, Wayfarer.

That's like saying you aren't harming a child by not making them wear a seatbelt, you're just providing the conditions that enable the child to be harmed. — darthbarracuda

It's not parallel, because the child exists in this scenario and in the case of birth, it doesn't. There is a being who might be harmed by not wearing a seatbelt. But there is no being who might be harmed by being born.

If a person's existence requires them to be harmed, then their existence is harmful to them. This should not be difficult to understand. — darthbarracuda

You're shifting the goalposts. We're talking about coming into existence, not existence itself.

:-d Define climate change, and you'll have my answer.

The world, with its ugliness and evil, does not disappear when one goes to heaven.

What?! No, I'm saying your post was ironic. I was trying to show how accusing someone of being a "climate change denier" is unhelpful, due to all the things that phrase could mean, ranging from lunatic positions to reasonable ones. You then, ironically, claimed I was a climate change denier.

Why would you direct that question to me?

My post was about the different ways one could "deny climate change." The whole idea of my post was to critique this phrase as unhelpful, given all the different things it could mean, which I sketched. Its vagueness is then used by those on the left to smear anyone who doesn't agree with them about this issue, as they define it, and how to solve it. And now here you are, apparently tone deaf to the irony of doing so, telling me that I'm a climate denier. Bravo.

This is a question, not a challenge — Wayfarer

As far as I know, annihilationism isn't condoned by Eastern Orthodoxy, of which he is a member. So it is a challenge.

Existence per se does not harm anyone; it merely provides the conditions, so to speak, for help or harm along with anything else to be. — Janus

(Y)

On this, we are very much in agreement. It creates a big problem for the East. My problems with Catholicism though is that it has had a very turbulent history with many committed atrocities that I find hard to accept, and I dont like that it has adjusted itself so much to modernity that it is nowdays hard to go somewhere and find the old mass in latin rite with gregorian chant... That they have almost abandoned that is a catastrophy IMO — Beebert

I don't know what you're including under atrocities, but I find many of them attributed to the Church to be overblown. A lot of anti-Catholic myths surround things like the Crusades and the Inquisition, for example.

I agree with you about the liturgy, though. The Catholic Church, in the false "spirit of Vatican II" almost succeeded in selling its birthright for a mess of pottage when it comes to the Mass. Benedict XVI has been influential in reviving the Latin form of it, though, so I hope it continues its comeback. Or at least, I hope the Ordinary Form can become more solemn and reverent.