Almost as old as Bitter Crank. — jamalrob

Did you get the reference, though? Funnily enough it might've even been the year of your birth...

10538.

What are you talking about? I didn't say or suggest anything about "using force". This law can't be enforced like other laws can. The police can't do anything about someone who secretly kills themself. And the principle is that it's wrong to rashly submit to what someone says when that someone should be treated as a patient and properly assessed by a professional. It's not horribly authoritarian at all, it's just sensible. The alternative would be rash and have disastrous consequences. I can't believe you're even considering it.

Why? What gives anyone the right to decide for someone else whether or not they are allowed to kill themselves? I understand about mental illness that might lead to suicide and how we would want to “save” that person, but if they don’t want help and just want to die...you want someone other than them to make that decision? A person cannot even die if they want to die? We gotta take that from them too? — DingoJones

Yes, of course I want someone other than them to make that decision, namely a medical professional. I've been suicidal myself. Thank goodness I got through it instead of being left to my own devices, or worse, being persuaded that I should do so if I want to, otherwise I wouldn't be here right now. But if someone is absolutely determined to kill themselves, then whether or not they have a "right" to do so is irrelevant. That's not something that can be taken away from them, anyway.

If change isn't possible, how are people responding to this thread? — Terrapin Station

They're not. It's an illusion. Like the value of philosophical discussions of this sort.

Yeah, a real legend. They should carve his head on Mount Rushmore. I loved that thing he did with splitting children away from their parents and caging them. My hero.

No, read it correctly, I am saying it is his argument. It is the main point of his argument. — schopenhauer1

Are you pulling my leg?

I made a simple point that the issue of consent is irrelevant, inapplicable, inappropriate, the wrong category.

You then say that that's not his argument.

I point out to you that the issue of consent is clearly part of his argument. And that he clearly thinks that it's of relevance. Meaning that you were wrong to dismiss my point like that.

And now you say that not only is it part of his argument, but it's the main point of it. Meaning, after having contradicted yourself, we're back to square one.

And the very fact that it is impossible to obtain consent, he seems to be saying, is why you should pick the least riskiest option (not born at all). — schopenhauer1

Can't you read? We've just been over this. My response to him bringing up consent is that it's irrelevant. It's a category error. And, I repeat, he never provided justification for his follow up assertion, and it has been refuted by counterexample.

"Least risky" is also irrelevant in itself, because the consequences are what matter, and the probable good consequences of having a child beat holding back with irrational and excessive "concern". It's irrational and excessive because the analysis is hopelessly biased, and the conclusion extreme. Real concern works with and for the living, not for wiping them out.

Case closed. We're done here. Unless you want to repeat yourself some more and go back over it again. But I'm not exactly eager to humour you in that regard. You'd have to actually argue the point instead of merely repeating what I've already addressed as though I don't understand it. There's little-to-nothing from either you or Khaled that hasn't already been addressed a million times over, anyway.

What responsibility do you think Americans need to take to repair the legacy of slavery in this country?

Play the radio, make sure the television - excuse me - make sure you have the record player on at night.

Joe Biden, 2020.

And then there was Andrew Yang's $120,000 free giveaway to random American families.

But the others did well.

You dont think [that an] adult should have the right to die if they want [to]? — Baskol1

No, not simply if they want to. But I do support the legality of assisted suicide under the right circumstances, as per the laws in certain countries.

You probably don't qualify and should seek professional help.

Not anymore, i have decided that it is enough for me. — Baskol1

You're in need of professional help, then.

You're presenting an argument that you've already presented elsewhere, and which has been refuted.

If someone takes £20 from someone else's wallet without asking, then that's wrong because they should have obtained consent.

If someone has sex with a three year-old, then that's wrong, not because they should have obtained consent, given that they can't have possibly done so, but because it is exploiting the child for sexual gratification, and the effects of child sexual abuse can include depression, post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, propensity to further victimization in adulthood, and physical injury to the child, among other problems. An adult who engages in sexual activity with a child is performing a criminal and immoral act which is not considered normal or socially acceptable behavior.

And procreating an embryo, foetus, baby, or child, is simply not wrong, generally speaking. But if it was, it wouldn't be because consent had not been obtained. That makes no sense. It can't possibly have been obtained. You couldn't tell me that I should have gotten consent first, like in all other such situations.

Your argument is fallacious, as it commits a category error. It's no different in form than arguing that we shouldn't mow the lawn without first having obtained consent from the grass.

Your argument is dead. Let it rest in peace.

Yes. This is just the same old anti-natalist argument as we've seen in five other threads recently. Those have all been combined by the moderators into one thread, which is still active. This discussion belongs there. — T Clark

I agree.

I hear all that. But I am not convinced that most people in this thread are even understanding what we are getting at...I certainly am not understanding what they are getting at? — ZhouBoTong

It's because they don't care. They have different priorities, like sounding creative and profound, even though they're actually just talking uncritical nonsense without realising it.

Im alive because suicide isnt that easy. — Baskol1

Life can't be that bad for you, then. Otherwise you would've overcome the difficulty. And you're lying to yourself. You know that you're alive because of comedy and good food and entertainment and all the rest of it. You should have the honesty to admit it. No one suffers when they're laughing their head off or enjoying a really nice meal.

"Penny for offshore accounts". Brilliant. :lol:

So does this restrict the kinds of propositions about God that one can put forth? I thought I was getting close to consensus with at least some folks, while others were never seeking consensus. — uncanni

If it's not a sensible consensus, then it's not worth it. If the rest of you all agreed that God is a state of mind, then good for you, but that's still a terrible description.

I think a place to start is can we say that God can be a metaphor for "what is" (aka metaphysics)? — schopenhauer1

No, clearly not, for exactly the same reason that I've given multiple times now, which is that a meaningful distinction between theism and atheism must be maintained if we're to talk any sense. I believe in what is. That doesn't mean that I believe in God. That doesn't make me a theist.

Honestly, how can anyone fail to see the importance of this?

I am just asking what we are assessing. Is life "bad" if I feel sad, or hungry, or frustrated right now? Do we add up all the times we fell this way? The antinatalist argument that life is "bad" seems to lack any metrics for which to establish this. — Echarmion

Well there's no objective standard, so the criteria can vary massively. But if you're enquiring about my criteria, then it would have to take a lot more than a fleeting feeling.

Well said.

A standard definition of miracle would be an out-of-the-ordinary event. — TheMadFool

That's clearly unacceptable as a definition, given the logical consequences. There aren't any miracles.

Hitchens is correct that miracles wouldn't necessarily imply, or even count as evidence towards, the existence of God. There are any number of possible explanations that could be given. It could be attributed to the work of magical faeries, for example.

Exactly, im not grateful for that, because if i would not be alive, i would not suffer. — Baskol1

How irrational. You say that, yet you choose to continue to live, which suggests that for you, living is better than not living. So in the bigger picture it doesn't matter that you suffer, because that doesn't effect the overall value you see in life.

What do we actually mean when we say life is "good" or "bad"? Are we comparing? Is there some sort of objective standard? — Echarmion

There's no objective standard, but that doesn't mean that anything goes or that we can't asses the matter sensibly. The anti-natalists are notorious for their exaggeration and cherry picking and one-sided rhetoric. They're seemingly incapable of assessing the matter impartially.

And your opinion does matter then? If no opinion matters, there would be no such thing as philosophy. — Baskol1

Sensible opinions matter. Yours is not sensible.

Good for you. Your opinion means nothing.

Not for everyone maybe, but for many it actually does. — Baskol1

You're being dishonest by cherry picking. The many you refer to do not outnumber or outweigh the much larger number of people for whom life is worth living. In proper context, the "many" you refer to are not many at all. They're few.

You dont understand, antinatalists are against existence because existence means suffering. You cant deny that. — Baskol1

How stupid. Of course I won't deny that. But unfortunately for you, your conclusion doesn't follow. And stop trying to mislead all of the time. It's not just suffering, is it? It's joy, happiness, bliss, ecstasy... but you don't mention that. That's dishonest.

No, everyone will suffer in life. — Baskol1

No one is going to dispute that. But that's not enough by any reasonable assessment to make life not worth living.

Actually, there are more poor people than rich people. And everyone can become potentially poor, and disabled, or sick. — Baskol1

Don't move the goalposts. You didn't say poor, and you certainly didn't say potentially poor. You said extremely impoverished. My counterpoint stands.

There are many, many people who are extremely impoverished in the world. It may get better, but its still pretty bad. — Baskol1

Yes, but not anywhere near as many who aren't. You can't win this one in terms of the numbers.

It's not pretty bad actually, on average. Cherry picking the bad parts, or the bad cases, doesn't make life bad, it makes your analytical skills bad.

However, this is really a debate about consent.
— schopenhauer1

No it's not, though! Because consent is irrelevant. How many times...
— S

Even if it is, that is not khaled's argument. His argument is that one should not put someone in a riskier situation if they cannot consent. — schopenhauer1

How can you say that that's not his argument, and then go on to mention consent in your description of his argument? That's a contradiction. Clearly if it's in his argument, then he thinks that it's of relevance. I'm saying that it's not, because obtaining consent isn't even a possibility.

And his assertion about putting someone in a riskier situation not only lacks justification, but has been refuted by counterexample.

That is why I bring up guardianship in this case and the asymmetry of no one being born and someone being born and having their life at stake. — schopenhauer1

Your inconsistency, you mean. If life were that bad, then there would be nothing at stake.

Dude, watch the animation.

However, again, the riskier option as presented to the parents is obviously letting the disease slowly eat away at the child. — schopenhauer1

No, that's an oversimplification, it's worded in an emotionally charged way, and it's neither obviously the riskier option, nor obviously the worse course of action to take. People opt against chemotherapy and major surgery for a reason. It can be worse than the alternative for some, not that that's always clear at the time, which is kind of the point.

However, this is really a debate about consent. — schopenhauer1

No it's not, though! Because consent is irrelevant. How many times...

Why pick on theological rambling verbiage, when there's so much rambling verbiage in general.

No, you can't artificially make it out to be that simple, I'm afraid, because life isn't that simple. There are situations where it's extremely difficult to decide whether or not to undergo a major surgery, because there are great risks either way. Another example would be undergoing chemotherapy. There might be a slim chance that it would be relatively successful, but it would be a hellish experience, and it might not pay off, whereas no chemotherapy would most likely mean a reduced life expectancy. Even if the legal guardian ends up opting with the "riskier" option, it's right that that's their decision to make. Khaled's analysis is overly simplistic, not thought through properly, and it is definitely not necessarily true of all cases. It is also not an impartial analysis, which is important in terms of method, and explains why it's hardly a surprise to find that there are problems with it.

Well, he is claiming this is a hard and fast rule it seems. Don't put people in riskier situations if there is an alternative when you have no consent. That seems reasonable. If you think not, then explain why. — schopenhauer1

Because under consequentialism that's irrelevant. If the riskier situation is the better option consequentially, then that's the one you should go for. It's easy to refute in theory. And it's easy to refute in practice too, come to think of it. There are lots of things that children can't consent to, and which carry risks, some of which are severe, like with almost any medication or surgery. It can be open to argument which course of action is the bigger risk in these situations, but anyway, the legal guardian should make that call, and that's not simply right or wrong just because of the risk involved or because they can't obtain consent (which is irrelevant, anyway!). There are important considerations entirely missing from that analysis. It hasn't been thought through properly, and it hasn't come from a place of impartiality, it's skewed in an attempt to support an anti-natalist argument.

The way I read it, he is saying there is absolutely no case he can find where someone should put another in a situation where they are more at risk than a less risky alternative when there is no consent to be had (I would have said maybe "impossible" to have). You don't have to answer the question, but that is his claim. I guess the challenge is more like, "Hey, I'll entertain your exception if you have one, but this is the case". — schopenhauer1

So an argument from incredulity. Even if I decide not to contemplate possible exceptions, his premise would remain unwarranted. This isn't even something that I am burdened with. I'm holding all the cards here, and to be honest, I can't be bothered to think about it anymore than I have to right now. Maybe I'll come back to it, maybe not. Either way, thus far, his argument is unsuccessful, because one of the premises in it lacks justification.

He claimed these things and then he asked you to provide any evidence that it is otherwise. — schopenhauer1

Exactly, and that's an example of the fallacy known as an argument from ignorance, also known as shifting the burden.

If you cannot, he is probably going to say that proves his point. — schopenhauer1

Except that that's a known fallacy.

So you're letting your bias cloud your judgement. I know you're both on the same side of the argument, but anyone who knows anything about the burden of proof, and about logic, should be capable of retracing the exchange between us back to his original claim, which was the second premise in his argument, that "actions that risk disasterous consequences for others are wrong when a less risky alternative is possible in cases where consent is unavailable", and he also claimed that "the fact is, in real life the least risky option is always preferred when consent is not available".

Now, from that, it is crystal clear that (a) he has a burden of proof, and (b) a single example does not meet the burden of proof, as I already made clear by way of analogy. If you disagree with that second point, then explain to me how an example of three people in a queue demonstrates that queues always consist of three people.

How long are you planning to dodge giving an example? I got to go now I don't wanna waste any more time on this. — khaled

I plan to continue to refuse to even consider giving you another counterexample until you learn enough about the burden of proof to know that it rests with you, not me, and act accordingly.