I gave an example as you asked. — khaled

No. You need to look back at what I actually said. I told you in response to your example that a single example by no means supports your claim. Have you ever studied logic? If I told you that a queue always consists of three people, and then offered you an example of three people in a queue in Tesco's, would that support my claim? No, obviously not.

Obviously that's what I meant. — khaled

Anyway, what the...? So you agree with me that they're terrible analogies. Ha.

You: These analogies are terrible
Me: I agree, they are extremes intended to show a general principle — khaled

That's the purpose of analogies: to show a general principle. But you just agreed with me that they're terrible analogies, suggesting that you think that they completely fail in that regard.

I'm not going to run through hoops for you. The burden doesn't lie with me. Support your own claim instead of trying to shift the burden.

Obviously that's what I meant. I was pointing out that you clearly think they're inadequate but I don't. And that repeating your opinion doesn't get us anywhere. — khaled

Shut up about it then. You are repeatedly mentioning your failed analogies, so I'm repeatedly replying that they're useless failures.

They don't, because the situations are too dissimilar, like in all of your attempts throughout this discussion.
— S

You: These analogies are terrible
Me: I agree, they are extremes intended to show a general principle
You: These analogies are terrible — khaled

Wow.

No, terrible in terms of how inappropriate they are as analogies, given the significant dissimilarities. They utterly fail to show any general principle, because the situations aren't similar enough for it to apply to both.

Not terrible as in, "Oh my god! Stabbing and blinding people is terrible!".

Duh.

I can't be bothered to deal with the rest.

Some people can't be convinced. — schopenhauer1

Like you. You're a prime example. Antinatalism has become a fundamental part of your identity. Almost every single discussion of yours is dedicated to the topic. You've learnt all of the crappy arguments. Adopted the language. You even named yourself after Schopenhauer. You're far too committed. Not a chance. We're all just wasting our breath talking to you.

If Benatar is right about the psychological studies... — schopenhauer1

Why would anyone trust him to be impartial? Would you trust William Lane Craig to be impartial?

It was a question. Is it true that you have the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers?

You said it was. I said it wasn’t, and gave the examples proving the opposite. You cannot retweet a limerick mocking a trans person without being investigated. You cannot read Dabiq without getting arrested.

No, you do not have the freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. — NOS4A2

You're still wrong for the same reason as before. See the first and second clause together, instead of cherry picking the first in isolation. Your examples are consistent with the first and second clause.

If someone claims that circle will become a square in the future, then the statement, "That circle is a circle" is a false statement at that time and that statement cannot be false, therefore that circle cannot become a square. — elucid

Lol, what?

Bowhm de-boo dah-de-da DA-DAH-DAH...

Bowhm-diddy, bowhm-diddy, bowhm-diddy, bowhm-diddy, bowhm-diddy, bowhm-diddy, mahmah-mahmah-mahmah-mahmah-mum...

Would a flower help? Here, have a flower: :flower:

I stole it from a grave.

Why?

Oh you do. — creativesoul

Not as much as you repeat your crackpot phrases in their entirety thereof.

Well I see no good reason to abandon ordinary language terms which come naturally to us. It causes more problems to go around saying that there's no correct or incorrect.

Haha, okay. So how would any ethical stance be incorrect. You simply set a requirement that you then fulfill with your stance. — Terrapin Station

Easy. Correct and incorrect with regards to morality are only relative, and what's incorrect works in much the same way as what's correct. Why do you think I've been saying that you're incorrect? Obviously, relative to everything I go by, you're very much incorrect. Even though in your wacky world, you're not.

Only a big government can curb the excesses of capitalism.

You buy that there's a non-relativist sense? — Terrapin Station

No.

So you don't actually believe that morality/ethics is subjective. — Terrapin Station

I do. Feeling this way or that way about something is very clearly subjective. I just reach a different conclusion to you regarding correct and incorrect, because I go by a relativist interpretation instead of an objectivist interpretation. I'm more pragmatic than that. The conclusion that there's no correct or incorrect is unacceptable, as it doesn't reflect our strong intuition. Relativism solves that problem.

So if the requirement to not ban any speech is fulfilled, is that correct? — Terrapin Station

Only in a relativist sense.

What am I cherry picking? Repeat it again and you’d be wrong again. — NOS4A2

It's obvious. You're cherry picking the first clause regarding freedom of expression under U.K. law, and deliberately ignoring the second clause. The second clause answers your fallacious criticism without me having to do anything except refer you back to it. I accept the two together. Maybe you accept only the first clause, but if you act as though I accept only the first clause, and point it out to me in isolation, then that is cherry picking.

No, that doesn't only seem, but clearly is, totally one-sided, and therefore totally unconvincing.

But you weren't- you were equating the situation before birth (the asymmetry) with the situation of suicide or death (no asymmetry). — schopenhauer1

But I don't accept your "asymmetry" baloney to begin with. It's highly controversial. You're acting as though you've already proved the point.

But I bring up that point as it is an important one. The child cannot decide for themselves to be put in a situation where one has to keep playing the game or drastically alter their existential status (suicide). That is a point I am making that is important here. Khaled made an analogy of saying, "Hey I like this game, now I am going to force another person into playing it. That's okay though, that person will probably like it too and if they don't, they can decide to exit by doing one of the scariest and harmful and anguishing things ever, kill themselves.. But don't worry, most people won't chose that, so they will just keep on playing the game." I don't think that is right to do to someone else. — schopenhauer1

Okay. Well thank you for sharing your opinion for the millionth time.

I liken antinatalism to a cause like veganism. As long as enough people in society have values so far afield from the particular ethic, it would not be right to impose such a thing. In the field of ideas, it is simple argumentation and convincing that is called for. In fact, even if a majority of people were antinatalist, I don't know if it would be right to "force" people into anything of that magnitude. Of course, now we are getting into politics. — schopenhauer1

But you find it acceptable, so life can't be that bad. That's all I was drawing attention to.

What would getting a moral stance correct amount to? — Terrapin Station

It would amount to some requirement being fulfilled, and the details of that will depend on the who and the what.

It's a category error because there is nothing to get correct or incorrect. — Terrapin Station

It's not a category error because there is something to get correct or incorrect, namely the issue under discussion. I'm correct and you're incorrect.

It's neither correct nor incorrect to allow or disallow hate speech. Correct/incorrect is a category error here. — Terrapin Station

It's not a category error. I'm arguing that it's correct to disallow it, meaning I think that it should be disallowed.

You're not equivocating moral right/wrong and right/wrong in the sense or correct/incorrect or accurate/in error here, are you? When I say that this is the sort of stuff that we can't get right or wrong I'm saying that we can't say something accurate or in error about it (insofar as moral stances go, where we're not simply reporting what moral stances people happen to have). I'm not saying that we don't have moral dispositions, that we don't think that various things aren't right or wrong. — Terrapin Station

Right and wrong, along with correct and incorrect, with regard to morality, are relative. It's not a category error. You're just deciding to interpret it that way.

It is not nonexistence tout court, but the asymmetry that occurs prior to existence. — schopenhauer1

Yes, your imagined "asymmetry". That's what I'm arguing against.

You realize you just contradicted yourself. No one CAN decide for themselves prior to birth. — schopenhauer1

You realise you just highlighted a section of what I said, treated it as out of context, and then proceeded to misinterpret it? Don't be daft. Obviously I meant that they should decide for themselves subsequent to birth, when they're old enough to do so, like I went on to say. There was no contradiction. You just failed to understand my point.

Also, no one is "stopping people from conceiving"... — schopenhauer1

Good. It's not wrong enough to stop people. People can carry on doing what they're doing, and you find that acceptable. It is morally acceptable for people to give birth. Otherwise you'd stop them.

Doesn't that mean that a circle can be a square? — elucid

No. It means that a triangle can be a seagull.

If they can be any stance imaginable, how do we get to any being right or wrong via reason? — Terrapin Station

It's impossible to get to any stance being right or wrong without the moral feeling which drives us towards right or wrong, and without the faculty of reason to reach that conclusion. And why would you disagree about right or wrong, correct and incorrect, on subjective and relative terms?

If I don't think that this is something that it's possible to be right/wrong about, then obviously I don't think that I'm right. — Terrapin Station

So we agree that it's not right to allow hate speech? We agree that you're not right about that?

I believe the only valid point here against my argument was that we see change everyday. My point for creating the thread is to help people understand those statements, not prove that change is possible or not possible. — elucid

What about the statement that a circle can't be a square, but it can become one? Do you understand that statement?

Can't moral emotions be any stance imaginable? — Terrapin Station

Hypothetically. What's your point?

Obviously I don't agree that I'm wrong and others are right. I don't believe this is something that it's even possible to be right or wrong about. — Terrapin Station

Oh dear. It's kind of funny that you're wrong on multiple levels. You're "right" only in your imaginary world, in which you are "king", and in which there are "criminal threats" which exclude threats which in the real world very much are criminal. You are too far removed from reality.

Why in the world do you think I would defer to others' opinions rather than stating my own? — Terrapin Station

Because, on this one, they're right and you're wrong. I guess I just have some glimmer of a hope that you might see sense enough to at least get some sense of perspective. But you almost seem entirely immune.

And of course I'm not someone who thinks that different is a bad thing. — Terrapin Station

Thinking that a cat is just a breed of dog isn't just different, it's bad in the context of acsertaining the truth, which is what philosophy is all about. Being stubborn and self-assured can only really be a good quality if you're right. Otherwise it's a real problem.

You clearly did not understand me if you think I am trolling. If something cannot be anything that is not a circle, it is always something that is circle. — elucid

Yes, until it becomes a square, like in the animations that you can see with your own eyes.

And you're definitely trolling.

I don't think you really believe that ethical stances are simply ways that individuals feel about interpersonal behavior. You seem to think that there are correct stances via reason. — Terrapin Station

Well, sure, there are stances that I'd call correct, and I arrive at them through reason. But reason isn't the driving force. Moral emotions are the driving force. And obviously I don't mean correct in a useless, imaginary objectivist sense. Maybe you adopt that interpretation in order to say that there's no correct answer, but that seems wrongheaded to me.

Basically, it is saying that something cannot ever be anything that is not what it is, so it has to with change. — elucid

You're funny. Change has to do with becoming. That a circle is a circle, and not a square, is irrelevant. It can become one.

I think maybe you're trolling.

You don't need my explicit agreement to get on with it. Just get on with it.

Hold on a minute, now you're being sensible again. How can you just switch it up like that?

I did not make that comment. — elucid

Yes, it was intentionally directed at Terrapin Station. He was sensible there, whereas elsewhere he says ludicrously unbelievable things.

Are you saying that you agree that a circle is sometimes the same as a square? — elucid

No, you pillock.