A person is someONE, but their face is someTHING, so if we are describing the beauty of a person’s face, it’s not objectifying the person to say that their face is a beautiful THING. — Pfhorrest

I know. I was merely playing.

By the way, I think it probably best that you know that I do in fact have a child with another one due in February. Just so you are informed as to where my biases lie. It may mean I am incapable of seeing natalism as immoral in the broad sense. That doesn't mean I don't agree in a more narrow sense. I'd consider it highly immoral for paedophiles to procreate because your predictions of suffering there would be completely on point in my eyes.

Also I've been drinking, so there is that. Not trolling though or at least it isn't my intent but I'm sorry if you feel like it is.

At the heart of this, I just want to ask what you think would be a better use of your time. Trying to convince people not to procreate, or convincing neuroscientists to set you up with the dial? I'll accept your answer either way as your answer and this will be the last you hear of it as I didn't originally come onto this forum with the intent of only talking about antinatalism. I have discussions on Truth and falsehoods to post after this.

I'd just take it as a compliment that you've inspired me to think about your views more.

I'm not trolling you. This is a sincere question. I'm just trying to provide some light humour so we all know that we are friends in this discussion and I do actually value your input. Also I don't believe in evil. So I'd never call you such a thing.

What about your goals and ambitions in life? You'd likely forget about those in favour of the button. Would you really want to lose everything that makes you, you? I mean, I know you wouldn't care after you had the button but do you care about those things now? Does your potential not matter to you? Does your dignity matter? I'd literally probably have to wipe your ass and bathe you like a child.

As an aside for everyone; it would probably be best to take this offer with the caretaker option. When the rats had control of the button, they forgot to eat, sleep and have sex. When this experiment was performed on humans, they tended to fall in love with the experimenter.

It really is an easy trap. My prey has yet to take the bait though. I personally see the human experience as so much more meaningful than seeking pleasure and avoiding pain. Far too binary for me and there is something to be said for the endeavour of struggling against the harsh universe for your joy.

@schopenhauer1 Your turn buddy! What will you pick?

sure, why not. I'll give you a dial instead of a button haha

To anyone that votes yes, I ask you, why? No judgements.

Good man.

I voted no just so everyone is aware.

Supreme Court Update: The six Republican Senators who will have the biggest parts to play are as follows, Collins of Maine, Murkowski of Alaska, Romney of Utah, Gardner of Colorado, Alexander of Tennessee, Roberts of Kansas.

All have been silent following the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Prior to her death, Collins and Murkowski claimed they would not vote to confirm another SCOTUS nominee before the election. They are both Pro-life and so would be the most likely to vote against a new justice nominated by Trump, as this could potentially lead to the Supreme court overturning Roe v Wade and lead to abortion being made illegal in the united states, again. Collins is also facing an extremely tough re-election in her home state. Part of this is due to the pushback she received from her constituents when she voted in favour of the confirmation of Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme court.

Romney, being the only republican to vote to convict Trump during his impeachment trial, is known to have the courage to stand up to Trump and the rest of the Republican party.

Gardner faces and extremely tough re-election in Colorado but is probably still likely to vote with his party.

Alexander and Roberts are considered to be pragmatic institutionalists and are retiring at the end of their terms. Meaning they won't have to fear any bombastic retaliation from President Trump but it's really anyone's guess as to how they will vote.

All six will be under immense pressure from both parties in the upcoming months.

I think that's how object-oriented programming took initial shape. A bunch of sexually frustrated programmers who objectify sexual objects into objects to sub for partners in their abject lack of finding a suitable subject being a reject, etc etc etc, I'll leave it to you to fill out the rest. — god must be atheist

Hahahaha! That made me laugh :') explains all the female armour in almost every video game. Metal bikinis and shit.

but that it was rather brazen of you to just join the forum, and then accuse a member who has been here for many years that they are doing nefarious, sock-puppet activities on the forum. — schopenhauer1

If it gets you talking and taking me seriously, then I'll say it. It was a sincerely held concern and I would have done it whether you had been here for five years or five minutes. The accusation itself was investigative in nature. If you had started flaming and insulting me in a highly emotionally charged way where you were protesting too much then I may have had a point.

I wouldn't worry about that though. It is in the past now and I've already apologised. The IP addresses don't match and I didn't know enough about you to really say either way.

To indulge this tangent- I still think there is a difference in the language-use/function in a human vs. animal. Generally we are using it to communicate to others AND self-talk ideas/concepts. Birds can maybe communicate about surroundings, mating, territory, etc. A lot of it is involuntary. Even primates, if forced in research situations, can communicate maybe a couple hundred words, but with no syntax, and again, not very natural. None of this adds up to the kind of language abilities humans have. I wouldn't even call what other animals have language proper, per se, but a communication system. But, I don't care about the exact definition as much as how it functions. Just on a cursory search, what I'm getting at is something like this: — schopenhauer1

Firstly, I'd like to point out that if your OP was a thesis which you were publicly defending, you'd be expected to be able to provide arguments that strengthen the initial premises and give good arguments as to why they aren't false. So I don't think it's a tangent, your initial claims must be scrutinised in order for us to really communicate. I could make an attempt to engage with what followed these initial premises by assuming them to be true for the sake of the argument, but then I'd be forced to be insincere and dishonest with you.

Secondly, I'd say that fundamentally human language is still just a communication system and there are arguments to be made about whether or not we are engaging in this voluntarily or involuntarily. Apes can also learn sign language. There is also something to be said about cognitive abilities to process language the way we do vs biological ability to speak. Some humans are born mute, most animals literally don't have the vocal chords to do what we do. Knowing whether or not thought processes are taking place in the minds of others is different to knowing whether or not an animal can physically talk.

Going back to whales, without knowing the meaning behind whale song, there isn't much we can be sure of when trying to answer the question, do whales have language? You may be right in that they are only communicating about basic biological functions, eating, mating etc, but for all we know, they are having deep philosophical communication about the nature of their individual and collective existence like we do.

The animal kingdom is full of different communication styles and some might not even be something we can perceive. Our ears might not be able to pick up certain frequencies, our noses can't tell the difference between individual rodents, our eyes can miss non-verbal communication and we to use non-verbal communication. (Which lets be honest is probably one of the reasons why so many misunderstandings arise between individuals when communicating purely in written formats.

I'm not so sure about this. I think most antinatalists are quite sincere. I think there can be a distinction made between antinatalists who are more passive (probably my views) vs. ones who get on board with things like "the benevolent world exploder" argument. — schopenhauer1

You said most, not all. I do agree with the most statement, however I'm curious as to which Antinatalists you think don't belong to this majority of antinatalists that you find to be sincere? What could someone identifying themselves as antinatalist, do or say that could make you disagree with that particular individuals take on the matter? I only ask because there have been plenty of times where I have face palmed because someone has been poorly arguing for a claim I'd normally agree with. Kind of like how people who believe in god, don't always agree with another individuals argument for the existence of god. For example I remember watching a Joe Rogan Podcast with a philosopher who was poorly arguing for my beliefs in philosophy of mind. I just wanted him to stop talking the whole time, even though we agreed with the same claim.

Well thank you, I'm glad that a newbie has accepted me as me and not some other in a forum I have contributed 4.3 thousand comments to — schopenhauer1

Newbie to the forum, not philosophy or these types of debates. Quantity of writing doesn't factor into your status to me. I'm sure there have been plenty of individuals here whom have contributed a lot of comments with no real qualitative substance. Not saying this is you but I've yet to read all 4k of your comments haha.

Firstly, thank you for revisiting my response. It is appreciated and I apologise for any offense caused by me, to you. It does say in my bio that I can be a bit of an asshole. Openly admit to that.

I need to go to the store, when I return, I'll give your response the attention it deserves.

Since some moderators have vouched for you, I will take you at your word and will try to be more charitable with your views. My first impressions of ZnOn will be harder for them to overcome based on their own monological argumentation style. Just so you are aware, I do not see all Antinatalists as members of a death cult, I do see some of them that way though.

Would you agree or disagree with these two statements?

Some Antinatalists have sincerely held beliefs and reasonable arguments to explain those beliefs as well as real moral concerns about the suffering of our species.
Some are insincere and only want to watch the world burn for their own pleasure.

You do see why I was a little suspicious at first though right? The timing of ZnOns account creation and direct interaction with your and only your posts was strange, even if we both agree now that those things are merely coincidental.

Call it a hunch. Timing and behaviour of the Znon account seems very strange to me. But then maybe all antinatalists just sound strange to me.

Friendly reminder that as of July this year, right-wing murderers have killed 300+ victims in the last quarter decade, while those professing anti-fascist stances have have killed literally no one. Not sure how the last couple of months have affected those numbers. Basically anyone whining about people who are anti-fascist but who have nothing to say about right-wing violence is a fuckstick whose opinion is less than worthless.

This to say nothing of the thousands of extra-judicial murders carried out by agents of the state - i.e. police - whom 'small government' types rush out to boot-lick.

Here's to more antifa actions, everywhere, all the time. — StreetlightX

Fucking seconded!

Any type of unprovoked ad-hominem is an admission of defeat, so good luck next time! — Zn0n

@schopenhauer1

No, it's an admission of incredulity at how transparent you are.

Creating another account to narcissistically agree with yourself is the real admission of defeat. Not that you'll ever believe that because you're already buying into the lies you are telling yourself.

@Zn0n
+
@schopenhauer1
=
Same person. Try covering your tracks better and don't be so transparent. The sheer level of stupidity and projection here is embarrassing to watch.

Go to fucking sleep already! Alkies.

There is nothing more erotic, nor beautiful, than my partner's face as she orgasms. — Banno

Helping out your ratio while simultaneously pointing out that if you don't want to objectify your partner, "There is no one more erotic, nor beautiful than my partners face as she orgasms." Would be the better way to phrase this... If she happens to like being objectified (a known kink) then forget I said anything and carry on!

*Bangs head against wall*

it is just waiting for some mind to see it and make it real... — Eremit

If it is there for a mind to see, then chances are it is part of reality in some way. Whether existence or subsistence.

This question seems kind of dumb to me, but then maybe I'm just not getting it and I'm the one who is dumb in this instance.

I see what you mean. This is why I'm part of the fuck all your factions faction.

If Cruz or Cotton are nominated, expect Roe v Wade to be one of the first things to go.

Funny you say that, Cruz is one of the people on Trumps list. Along with Tom Cotton.

@Maw Amy Barret is also on that list. However she may rub Protestant Republicans the wrong way.

Update: Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has suggested that she will not confirm a new justice, until after the January 2021 presidential inauguration. If three more Republican Senators decide to do the same, then no new justice will be appointed until after then. McConnell needs at least 50 votes to confirm a new justice, assuming the 51st vote will come from Vice President Mike Pence.

The arrogance of the Left never fails to dumbfound me. — JerseyFlight

Weird, the arrogance of humans now completely fails to even surprise me.

You make a very, very good point. It certainly doesn't sound like how democracy should work

the weak, incompetent, arrogant Left.

Are you describing the left here or humanity in general? I see it as the latter but I hesitate to call any politician human.

"Think of the children, won't someone please think of the children?!"

Sorry. Someone had to say it.

Seriously though, it's not worth getting my ass beat by my wife on the rare occasions where I get semi erect in public due to an uncontrollable physiological reaction when confronted with someone I find attractive. Really, really not worth it.

I only get naked in public for a fight, while saying "I fuck what I beat". This is just an intimidation tactic to try and avoid the fight though as few people want to mess with a crazy person. No one has done it back yet though which would be equally terrifying to me!

You're probably right. This is 'Moscow' Mitch we are talking about here, after all.

I still hope it is done, so others are reminded of it. Not that it will help stop a new conservative Justice from being voted in by the senate. This could be so far reaching though, with a bigger conservative majority on the supreme court, they may vote to stop the counting of mail in ballots and hand the presidency to Trump. Will be like Bush all over again.

Really like this thread. Like an oasis of reason and humility in a desert of egoic, prideful and arrogant irrationality.

Will watch the video and respond appropriately soon. I just wanted to share my preliminary reaction to the thread.

Finally! I thought I was the only one who was gonna pick at these ridiculous premises for this discussion. Sir, I salute you.

"The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new president." ~"Moscow" Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader (KY-R), Feb. 13, 2016

I do so hope that someone in the senate quotes McConnells own words to his face on this one.

Update; Supreme court justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has died. All sorts of fans are about to be hit by all sorts of shit. :/