that was not an insult my friend.

If I were you, I would get therapy.

NGOs made up of teenagers who do nothing at all managed by parents — Lionino

I think that's just the target audience. That's who they can rile up the most. That said, think its pretty damn clear Amnesty is a pretty blithering organisation largely just virtue signalling. But, they do get some stuff done that wouldn't other be done like clemency for blasphemy death sentences in the middle east and what not

(most recent reply to MU)
It seems to for me.

As far as your response to me, that's relatively clear as to the position - but I find it really hard to believe anyone could hold to moral realism, but not that there are moral facts (note: Not "there are no moral facts" but you do seem open to that too. Error Theory I guess. I see that as a cop-out personally). That seems contradictory. Well, not entirely contradictory, but the fact you are not committed to any moral facts seems to fly in the face of being committed to moral realism. I say that as someone who was a moral realist for basically comfort reasons, but have utterly failed to find anything even remotely resembling a moral 'fact'. The idea is incoherent to me at this point.

Colors are observable to all, and visual experiences are not. — Richard B

An absolutely crystal example of Searle's inability to think clearly. He very much likes his hand waving.

Personally, I see that version (deontastic!) as inapt. It essentially says
"there's a risk, so don't" which I can't quite see as a good enough reason not to procreate. The A-symmetry seems to rely on the consequentialist concept, even if the actual justification is more broad (i.e to live is to suffer. We shouldn't cause others to suffer. Don't have kids). I think I see why Leontiskos had a problem with this. It's more-or-less arbitrarily nihilistic. I think the consequentialist description overcomes some objections that are in concept, rather than execution. I wouldn't say life simply is suffering. I would say it is most likely the vast, vast, vast (perhaps 99.85%) of people born will, on balance, suffer more than they enjoy their life. Therefore, the possibility (0.15%) of a life worth living tells us not to create lives, on balance rather than because life is awful prima facie.

No, the change is the shadow falling over a part of the red ball, making that part look dark red. That's what there is to see. — jkop

Yep. There is naught to talk about but our experience of anything. Otherwise, Noumena.

The speculative metaphysics going on in here to support the idea that colour is "out there" is really weird. It's gotten very boring though as no one seems to be understanding each other, and I apologise to anyone who wanted a direct reply. Having read these last two pages, I cannot understand how half of you tie your shoes :nerd:

There must be more suffering before the arguments in favor of antinatalism become plausible. Is that right?

But if it is right then it seems like suffering does not always trump any other consideration, for the suffering of the pinprick does not trump the consideration of other pleasures. — Leontiskos

I think it would clearer to say that "the sum total of suffering ensured by living a human life outweights any version of hte calculus a ANist can provide".

I.e, on our understanding of suffering, pleasure and how to balance them (those terms are obviously lacking nuance) we cannot find a reason to risk the most likely outcome - that one's sum total of suffering vastly out-weights the other considerations in one's life. To bring a person into existence when there is a very high - almost inescapable - chance their life will be, on balance, bad for them, is wrong. (i would think that statement stands to reason - you need not agree, but it explains the position I think).

Being an AN is a result of running the calc, and never coming out with 'life' as the winner. Not that its pre-decided. Obviously, that would be stupid. But if its a 2/98 chance, i'm going to force someone into the race.

If suffering always trumps any other consideration — Leontiskos

It only does so once the calc is run. The statement is not meant to be a position of it's own. It's more "I've run this calc 60,000 times and zero came up on the side of procreation". Again, disagree, sure, but it's wrong to take this as a position rather than what causes the position to be taken up.

you may be willing to balance suffering and other considerations in a way that schopenhauer1 is not. — Leontiskos

Possibly. Reading down just this page I get the feeling he's just being imprecise in a way that sort of hides what I'm saying about in some more let's say confident language.

It's certainly possible I'm not quite groking the question, so if this doesn't seem apt - that'll be why lol.

Prima facie, I would say it doesn't tip the scales because other pleasures out weight a pinprick (scratching a decent itch would be enough v a pinprick). But the suffering of life is vastly more intense, prolonged and intractable than a pin prick.

That said, I don't really understand Amadeus' post here. This is how I read it: — Leontiskos

Ill try to re-word your interp. to see if it gets you anywhere..

I think the discussion of what level of suffering need be prevented is more or less the discussion that antinatalists have among themselves (and it is also the discussion that others wish to have with antinatalists). The type of suffering doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance between the "intensity, length and meaningfulness of the suffering" and other considerations* that is interesting. The antinatalist position is that suffering always trumps any other consideration.

As a clarifying point, to me, 'other considerations' could be positive experiences, bare pleasure (in an abstract sense), character-building, the achievement of some life-long goal etc.. etc.. But the problem with all of this is it's speculation. We're only talking about unborn people - in this way, we can see that suffering is ensured (by the journey to Death) but positive experience is not vouchsafed by being born. One could have an all-in-all 'good' life, but that's highly unlikely on the view of the world and life ANs take, and at any rate, the suffering which comes with one's death (ones anxiety, fear etc.. and the pain of those around us) would usually trump that possibly-good life. Only religion can break that loop, and I think that's a poor way to gt around it myself.

Perhaps there are different approaches than his. — Leontiskos

Fair

Because I see apokrisis' objections as apt I see it as inevitable that questions of balance must emerge. — Leontiskos

Yep. I don't see them as apt at all given they were responding to me making that point.

It seems like your position is that there must be balance - not "carry out a balancing exercise". That is not reasonable at all, if that;'s the take. And if it's not then you've missed that ANs do the balancing exercise, and suffering tips the scales. Given this is the case across the board in relation to procreation then the exercise has been carried out and the answer is clear. I'm not sure what else you could want? To deny the result of hte exercise (on their account, that is?)

how could there ever be a balance between suffering and other considerations — Leontiskos

There is no need for one, unless for some strange metaphysical reason you believe this is hte state of things, arbitrarily. That seemed to be apokrisis' position. I found it funny, and a not just a little silly.

which sorts of suffering need to be prevented — Leontiskos

I think this is more-or-less the discussion ANs have (and honestly, the one whcih is usually attempted cross-positionally). The type though doesn't seem that interesting - it's the balance (ironic, given apokrisis' objections in the other thrad) between suffering and other considerations. The position is that suffering always wins out

Schop keeps requesting my presence. No matter how many years it’s been. It seems to energise him judging by the caps lock shouting. — apokrisis

I see... Again, fair enough lol. No idea about your history

I'd recommend avoiding such stereotyping, unless your goal is to be seen as an insensitive douche bag, in which case :up: — wonderer1

I thought it was really funny. I'd recommend he keep making jokes.

philosophy is playing a much longer game — schopenhauer1

True - I should probably remember the stark difference between this forum and in-class discussions I have.

Have you considered that what you see as 'trolling' others see as valid points that are not addressed by the argumentation. — I like sushi

Of course. This is now coming across as fairly bad faith (i know it isn't but please note what you're doing - telling me I'm not intellectually in the game, as it were). Assuming i've not considered the points adequately is a bit weird if you're getting at me for pointing out others have clearly not done the same (and even self-admitted they don't care to?) These are very different scenarios. Though, I don't fault you. You're doing roughly hte same as me.

You generalise and mention 180. — I like sushi

Several people clearly don't, and yes, that's from my perspective. I have no other. All you can actually do is disagree with me, but it doesn't even seem that you're doing so.

Whether they(interlocutors) agree is a totally different issue - one which doesn't matter if they clearly don't understand my views. I would be the only person in a position to know whether you have understood them.

That said, in terms of the wider issue you're point out, given there are three or four usual suspects in this respect, I don't find an issue with my take. I accept lots of people wont like it, and lots of people wont agree or understand. That's how life works.

Thank you for the link. When my current assignment is over, it might be something to go over with you.

I'm not sure what "I did" pertains to, or what video you're specifically referring to so shan't comment, but your conclusion here tells me you don't quite understand, so I'm not sure where to take that. I don't particularly care either, I'm just responding as I see fit.. A small remark, based on our exchanges, is that you did not present me any reason to think this AN position is not ethical. You might say "anti-ethical" but that must be on an ethical scale, so not sure its doing the job you think.

your position is correct and anyone who does not agree simply does not understand — I like sushi

No, not at all. I think, again, you have seriously (and uncharitably) misunderstood the point. I do not care whether 180 agrees. He doesn't make any sense to me msot of the time, so why would i care? The point is his constant misrepresentation, trolling remarks, insults and pure ignorance of what's been put to him.
It is genuinely fun. But, do not get it twisted: "you don't understand", for me, has absoltely nothing to do with agreement or disagreement :)

Why not just chill and enjoy the friction of lively debate? — apokrisis

I do.

And all your accusations seem better fitted to describing your own behaviour. — apokrisis

We often turn to shoot the messenger, don't we :)

It is not as if anyone can win or lose in an internet forum where no one is really invested in the outcomes or any independent party keeping score. — apokrisis

For sure. Which is why I woulkd ask again: Given you're (by your own admission) not understanding, or caring about what this thread is about - how come you're here laying out post after post of stuff that doesn't seem properly on topic? Surely it would make more sense to spend your time elsewhere on this forum?

ou can't seem to decide whether to love everyone or hate everyone — apokrisis

Neither. I don't know any of you. As a general disposition, Love is far closer to the mark though. I certainly enjoy my time here, and most interactions I have.

Unfortunately, we only have two options:

1. Discuss amongst ourselves (i.e those holders of the view, or sympathetic to the view); or
2. Put up with people who clearly misunderstand hte position, can't put together coherent objections and consistently insult us on the basis of a view we're not forcing on them.

I would hazard a guess neither is actually worth the time. That said, 180 is a never-ending fountain of bad replies which certainly help to elucidate the wrongness of some objections, so maybe there's that.

which your trolling is too lazy to pick-up on or too disingenuous to acknowledge my references elsewhere in this thread (as well as on schophenhauer1's other "AN" threads), so STFU, STFD and maybe you'll learn something, kid. — 180 Proof

You have proved yourself incapable of reading a simple response. AS always, proving you're not a serious person. It gets easier and easier. Maybe if you stopped behaving in a way that squarely fits th definition of trolling, you'd say something sensible.

anti-natalism is a kind of second-order malady — Leontiskos

Why not just admit you don't get it? That's what all of what you've put forward in this thread amounts to. As those who hold the view attest, consistently.

determining what moral truths if any there are to be had — Dan

Is the position that ethics are objective, whether or not we apprehend them? And that we actually don't apprehend them? This is somewhat confusing. One would think, if you're an objectivist, it's because you've come up against an objective ethic?

* New Zealand :)

Very abnormal, thought probably not so abnormal outside of the undergraduate cohort (remember, I'm a 'mature' learner and so not part of hte generation I'm studying with. It's been extremely obvious - even a couple of tutors are hopelessly ideological). My school just introduced a Bachelor of Social Justice Studies. I nearly threw up.

Then stop fucking posting in here? Good lord. Or, be honest - the reason you keep posting is because you care. One or the other, no?

Objectively, universally. — Dan

Oh, I see. You're yelling into the ether then...

The compression is actually allowed to lose a lot -- or even most -- of the information contained in physical reality. — Tarskian

Not if you want to reconstruct reality rather than a pale comparison. In any case, it sounds like you're apply concepts in data processing to "reality" which seems... off, to say the least. Is there a basis for it? I'm always interested in metaphysical speculation of that kind.

Don’t you mean because the world is perfectly non-ethical? — Fire Ologist

LOL, Yes, I suppose so. May not non-ethical, but ethically bereft/empty/inapt. I hope you groked what I was getting at though... Simply that there is no need for ethical thinking (and no humans would be just that). In fact, it may be that it's not possible in that scenario. But probably that leads into some kind of exegesis which isn't my bag. I say that because, having re-read my passage it would require a "view from nowhere". Speculatively, I don't see an issue though - we're not in that world :P

DiAngelo has been accused of plagiarising several passages from her PhD (and some subsequent) thesis. From POC.
Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me. Schadenfreude - I have to say.

For sure, there are many types of unpleasantness, and not every one is pain. "Unpleasant" is the wider concept. So not all unpleasantness is pain, but all pain involves unpleasantness. — Metaphysician Undercover

No, it doesn't. I seriously do not think you are taking enough time to read these replies. I am directly, stringently addressing this point in each reply and you seem to miss it entirely. I have given you several inarguable examples of why pain is not always unpleasant and further that this isn't part of it's nature. If you reject this, fine, but you need to actually tell me why all the examples and reasons are wrong. You have not. The quote you used directly contradicts your position by my existing in this discussion. You can't be missing that, can you? You're replying, after all, to someone who does not always experience unpleasantness along with pain.

because one cannot have pain without unpleasantness — Metaphysician Undercover

Yes they can. Sorry.

unpleasantness does not imply pain — Metaphysician Undercover

Agreed. This was never put forward. Unpleasantness infers (well, requires) discomfort to obtain. Pain does not require unpleasantness to obtain. It simply doesn't. I don't know why you're claiming this against empirical evidence of millions of humans experiencing pain without unpleasantness - and in fact, experiencing pleasure from pain. This is just... why are you trying to simply erase a load of facts about other people's experience, including mine? Are you trying to say I'm lying?

"Inheres" means existing within something, as an essential property. — Metaphysician Undercover

I got you the first time. You're just not confronting what i've said at all. My reply is directly relevant to this, and unfortunately, shows it to be wrong. Pain is a sensation directed at the host attending to an injury. Unpleasantness is just one mode of this occurring to cut through other stimuli. Pain is patently not always unpleasant. I experience this fact all the time. Why are you not getting this??? "hurts so good"

so pain does not inhere within the definition of unpleasantness. — Metaphysician Undercover

This wasn't suggested. I think you're maybe off on your own tangent now? All i put forward was that "unpleasant" sensation requires discomfort to be so labelled, but "pain" does not require "unpleasant" for hte same. And it doesn't. Sorry if you still think it does - this one isn't a "positional" disagreement. You are wrong. As I and billions of other's instantiate. If you've literally never felt a pain without also feeling that it is unpleasant, that's a shame - but understandable. It's a tricky thing. I absolutely, almost sexually, enjoy the pain of scalding water on the tops of my hands, my inner thighs, behind my shoulders and right on my hip bones (to the point that i had very midly burned myself many times in pursuit of it (opportunistic pursuit, to be sure)). It is definitely pain. But it is definitely not unpleasant. Its a tool telling me to stop fucking running scalding water on myself lmao. EVENTUALLY this can get unpleasant - as, when my skin starts melting, my brain kicks it up a few notches. Fair, too. I'm not exactly the most caring about my own body in this way. I self harmed for years. another notch on this club.

Have you not researched those two aspects yet? — Metaphysician Undercover

It seems you did not read that paragraph very well, as nothing you've said aligns with anything I've said. Huh.

If every red is a percept then it makes no sense to speak substantially about red percepts. The equivocation becomes more clear if you compare, "The red pen," to, "The red percept." If we follow your lead and reduce each statement consistently, then the first renders, — Leontiskos

This is a an opportunistic reversal of Banno's argument. We use language differently. Great! "red" conceptually is a percept (lets pretend) and "the red pen" or "the red percept" is a label which is conventionally used to cut-down the actual phrase "Items we use to write with, containing ink flowing to a nib, which reflects light in "such and such a range" so as to trigger, under normal circumstances, that percept referred to as "the colour red" as a property of the brain-generated image of the object viewed by the sensory organ". But we don't say that. We say "red pen". Not "because we say X, therefore, Y". That's just shitty reasoning that makes no sense unless you think that language literally creates the world (I think Banno does).

Nothing around this thread violates this. There's nothing circular about hte fact that we re-use, mis-use and multiply-use words - and can be wrong in how we use them. The convention "literally" has had to undergo a redefinition because of it's constant misuse. Not a misuse anymore, is it?? Because convention said so. Not in any way relevant to trying to tease out the basis of colour experience. This doesn't touch on any of the science/scientistic claptrap you lot are stuck on. However, Michael has made some mistakes... not my circus. I just reply where I can see a point.

We don't teach children what colors are by sharing are experiences of mental percepts of color — Richard B

yes we do. We literally compare items and teach children that the correlation in their mind between these items is due to colour concepts. Shades come after and probably fit better into what you're talking about. having raised two children, and specifically tasked with introducing the younger of the two to colours and hte understanding of them (as between objects) says I know that this is hte case.

"basic stuff" but you don't understand inferences, or fixing the nonsense you come up with sometimes. Tsk tsk.

You'll need to let me know what this has to do with AN first (i can save the time: It does not have more than an aesthetic resemblance to the issues AN wants to deal with). — AmadeusD

yes, that's right, but antinatalists don't confuse the issue:
No humans. Not not playgrounds. Let the people who exist use hte playground, for reasons your point out that would make the "no playgrounds" conclusion stupid as heck. — AmadeusD

I am conceptually in line with AN entirely (including the above prescriptive thinking and hte delineation between living and potential persons — AmadeusD

It's not relevant to me whether someone claims they have a good life individually - the argument is about lives to come. Those who are currently living aren't relevant, — AmadeusD

There are clearly not. There are potential victims. — AmadeusD

If these people were not having children, and increasing the sheer number of sufferers on the planet, I don't think this argument would any weight as one's delusion becomes one's reality internally. — AmadeusD

(this one I've picked, because it clearly shows me saying something stupid, but still attests to your error.

There are plenty more i recall, but I don't want to go through pages, and pages when the search function isn't picking everything up...

ANists hysterically confuse 'preventing possible lives' with 'preventing (and reducing) harm to / suffering of actual lives'. — 180 Proof

So, in light of all the above, it is clear you're either misinformed or trolling, as these are standard AN fare. The suffering of those alive doesn't lead to any position for hte AN-er, other than to say most people already living have a rational interest in continuing to exist. For the most part, that isn't part/parcel of the AN position any given person might hold. It's an externality due to the A-symmetry argument. It seems you either reject, or don't understand it. It makes it almost impossible for an ANist to be motivated by extant human suffering because the purported results of hte view have nothing to do with those living people (except to the extent one might want to discourage procreation - but that's clearly not a motivating factor for the view). Perhaps it's just time you step away from a thread all you do is drive-by and say things that aren't quite right in lol.

If you have an argument against that argument — apokrisis

It has literally nothing to do with what's going on in this discusison. Its a total non sequitur. 'argument' against is inapt. You are simply putting words in people's heads. Sorry to tell you, but I don't look for problems. YOu need to just accept that, or accept that you're trying to mind-read.

But once you declare no line can be drawn, no balance of interests can exist, then that becomes reason eating itself. — apokrisis

True, and completely irrelevant. The balance is in the a-symmetry, for most ANists.

So does your AN charter need to add the clause of no sex at all as that is putting you at risk for breaking the faith? Do you need to go out and get sterilised because you could always get drunk one night or duped into performing a service for some cunning natalist? — apokrisis

One of those options would be preferable. This is not controversial. Non ANists do these things all the time for plenty of reasons - many, ethical (are you(not you, but rhetorically) aware you child might be missing a chromosome? Likely, you wont procreate. What's the difference there, but degree?)

The risks might be diminishing, but even a vasectomy fails 1 in 10,000 times. At some point do you not eventually get a pass on this? — apokrisis

It is almost certain you're arguing with a ghost. I've already addressed this. Certainty is not involved here. You are once again, wrong about the position and are arguing with no one

Does even the AN extremist accept that imperatives have their pragmatic limits? — apokrisis

I don't think even you know what you're talking about now. The only relevant point I could make, though it actually isn't relevant to what you've said - is that an ANist is concerned with not causing more suffering. Nowhere in AN does it posit that there is a 100% fool-proof way to do this. If your point comes down to the infantile suggestion that we can't guarantee that sex wont result in a birth, I have no idea why you think this matters. I can't answer for the extremist, but as Weinberg put its "the risk of a life time" is the risk we're talking about. The risk of sex resulting in a birth/pregnancy is irrelevant unless you're already an ANist. So, perhaps stay on topic. It is getting really tedious having to bring you back to something sensible in every reply.

We can get back to my commonsense position that what matters in regard to approaching reproduction ethically is not whether the prospective parents can have the baby sign off on the whole exercise in advance, but that the parents are wholeheartedly engaged in making it a turn of as a positive choice. — apokrisis

Hooo boy haha, there isn't a heads or tails to reply to here The bolded (whcih is the distilled claim from your POV) is absolute fucking nonsense and so the paragraph is empty. (no, I don't "not get it". You are literally talking non-sense).

One can have a productive ethical debate where there are two complementary imperatives in play – like risks and rewards — apokrisis

This is one of hte stupidest claims about ethical discussion i've ever seen in my life. That's... that's cute.

But if you set up your ethics on the side of a slippery slope fallacy, then why would you expect that to be useful or persuasive? — apokrisis

Haven't. You just are wrong in pretty much all the meaningful ways one can be in this discussion. You literally don't understand (or care) by your own admission what's being discussed. And your replies make this extremely clear. It feels like a child at the adults table, tbh.

But that is just your failure to understand my position. — apokrisis

You don't understand, or apparently care about ours... Yet you're constantly making sweeping, general proclamations about it, and then saying pithy but empty nonsense like this:

My core principle is that there is always a dialectical balance in anything that could matter. A trade-off. And trade-offs ought to be optimised in a win-win fashion. That is the answer that is worth seeking. My approach leads me to pragmatism. We do the best we can by reasoning. We should always expect a complementary balance to exist in nature. Complementary balances is after all how nature can even exist. — apokrisis

Sorry to say, but this is the form preaching takes. The bolded doesn't actually present any sense whatsoever. It's metaphysical speculation in the most strangely uninteresting form i've seen in a while. It's impossible to know why you're doing this, but it's enough now kiddo. Either get educated (and actually give a fuck) about the subject, or post in another thread. It is utterly bizarre that you would, several exchanges ago, point out that you don't get, or care.... and continue replying. I smell some rather obvious self-loathing, or dishonesty.

No. It was a misstatement which I've fixed. You're very much welcome.

really have the distinctive property that they do appear to have. =/= They are red. — Banno

Jesus christ lol.

If you would read what I posted — TonesInDeepFreeze

I did. It is appearing, more or more credibly, that you're not really doing the same, as there is clarity from comment one of this exchange and several attempts to end the clear horseshit going on here.

"Why did it take nine pages" is very, very clear indicator, if you're actually paying attention, that I assent to RussellA's position. And, our subsequent exchange made that explicitly, painfully clear directly to you.

If you still have questions, perhaps aim them elsewhere as I have answered anything relevant several times now - and that's ignoring hte spoon-feeding required being a problem.

It could have been better written. — apokrisis

LMAO, possibly, but your response seems to just be inapt, even on review. The core point was missed.

Well who gives a fuck when you put it like that. — apokrisis

You're trying to assert that mind-reading is a sound practice. Far be it from me my friend :)

Which is another way AN harms itself as a reasonable ethical system. — Fire Ologist

I'll try to sort out your comments below, but I do not see how that, in any way, harms itself. If the ethical goal is to no longer require ethical systems (because the world is perfectly ethical) then it is precisely, as an ethical system, that AN succeeds (obviously if you disagree with it then success is subjective, but I hope you get the sense in which I mean this).

If the goal of ethics is to eliminate ethics — Fire Ologist

I'm unsure this is the right description of the goal, but onward..

we could just ignore any pangs of morality now instead — Fire Ologist

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but this seems to violate the former idea: If we're ignoring moral pangs (though, I couldn't give a shit what your moral pangs are. Show me the results of your behaviour) then ethics would say this is unethical, in some sense. You are not attended to ethics in this case. The case I'm, at least superficially, putting forward as a goal of AN would be that there are no ethics to attend. I think there is a clear distinction, myself, because you're right - the conception you've described here is inapt, and probably self-defeating.

using scales of ethics and motality to help decide one’s way forward for sake of eliminating ethics is a bit like using math to show how numbers can’t exist (or in this case shouldn’t exist). — Fire Ologist

I do not see this at all, unfortunately. They are not the same thing, or comparable. To be fair, morality would likely only pertain to the acts of hte living. Ethics are to do with the effect of those acts so there can be a difference between the two 'scales' being considered, I think - though, I ahve written this on the fly while editing a settlement statement so go easy LOL

Not to sound rude, but did you actually read my reply? My position is that:

recognizing for problems — apokrisis

Is a more apt description. — AmadeusD

Your POV that we're 'looking for problems' is simply not the case. ANd, it is not for you to decide whether or not it is. We see things differently. You are not right. We are not 'right'. You are, however, wrong about the motivation. Recognizing, not seeking. If you do not accept this, that is pure bad faith. There is nothing to explain, from our position. You are simply wrong about what we are thinking, or motivated by. And you couldn't possibly know, so... yeah.

Yet you keep falling into the same trap of asserting you know how the body/brain works while at the same time asserting that we cannot trust our senses. — Harry Hindu

Not quite, no. I've addressed this apparent hypocrisy recently and wont rehash because I'll make a pigs ear of it.

How do I know that you read what you read about the body/brain accurately when you depend on your eyes to see the words? How do we know that some mad scientist didn't plant these ideas in your head, or that you didn't hallucinate the experience of reading "facts" about bodies and brains? — Harry Hindu

These are the precise issues I addressed in the referenced response.

So I 100% take that objection, — AmadeusD

Suffice to accept this part of it, at least LOL.

Just because someone can change the time on the clock to report the wrong time does not mean that clocks are useless in telling time — Harry Hindu

This is precisely the defence I've run, in other terms.

In other words, we can determine the validity of what one sense is informing us by using other senses, observing over time and using reason. — Harry Hindu

Yes, correct. This, despite not having any direct access, or certitude about our sensory apprehensions. Its a best-guess, and if that's the best we have, it's the best we have.

Huh. I think that's a very strange thing to say. Unpleasantness is exactly what "pain" indicates to me. It refers to a wide range of unpleasant feelings, just like the dictionary states. What does "pain" mean to you? Does it simply mean the sensation of touch? Are all touches painful to you, or do you have a way to distinguish a painful feeling from a not painful feeling? — Metaphysician Undercover

Very much fair, and I think this may illustrate what I'm saying: Clearly, as between you and I, there is not a 1:1 match between pain and "unpleasantness". Pain (i.e a sensation that indicates injury - physical, or mental (but mental is awhole different discussion I think)) doesn't, inherently, mean displeasure. Maybe that's clearer?
Perhaps you need to maintain my position (that pain is mental) to support the idea that pain is inherently unpleasant, as clearly, to the injury part (i.e the "physical" aspect of pain) this is patently not hte case.

It would take a great deal of benevolence to make up for the bilge he gets paid for spewing out into the public discourse. — Vera Mont

It was a bt of a cheeky quip - I don't think its possible to call someone an asshole from their public output, unless its criminal/socially criminal. I've seen some examples of that from him, but far more examples of him being compassionate, understanding and vulnerable. Again, can provide those instances if you're interested in them.
I think you're probably somewhat mislead by what you've seen, if this is the case. In his public life, he presents a character almost the polar opposite to that which is glommed onto for criticism purposes. ONe prime example is his talk about 'socially enforced monogamy' being misinterpreted as if he's advocating for forced relationships or something. Far from it. Just one eg... He's an incredibly effective therapist and his general self-help stuff is honestly really, really really good for our times, and for hte crisis he's trying to address in mostly men. That said, It's not in any way going to improve your life, I don't think hahaha. Just generally like to ensure people get both sides of something like that, when so much bullshit is bandied about.

some who understand the fascist relationship with economics might not agree with you — Athena

True - I suppose I would be looking for how you can instantiate an entire political mode from economics.. Though, i understand the 'slippery slope' aspect of seemingly-innocent policy changes.

However, someone as good-looking as your avatar doesn't have to know everything — Athena

AWww shucks :P

As someone on the autism spectrum, the question arises for me of whether in an afterlife I would be autistic.

If not, then it doesn't seem like it would be me in the afterlife.
If so, and for eternity, I expect I'd think the afterlife kind of sucks. — wonderer1

Interesting - I would never had thought to ask this, though, I am essentially not open to an afterlife that retains any personality whatsoever. INteresting, nonetheless.

Once you get into a mindset oflooking recognizing for problems — apokrisis

Is a more apt description. You may still think this is inapt for life in general, but it is certainly bad faith to attribute behaviours you're, in the sentence, deeming problematic, when that's not established - its just an appearance from your POV :)

projection and non sequitur — 180 Proof

Seems the modus operandi. I cannot fault, though, as it's likely I've come across like this most of the time to you also(and that's ignoring our actual disagreements lol. I just have ideas that are going to be sometimes bad).

The answer is 1994:

- Leon: The Professional
- The Crow
- Natural Born Killers
- Interview with the Vampire
- Four Weddings and a Funeral
- Corina Corina
- Legends of the Fall
- The Lion King
- Forrest Gump
- True Lies
- Ed Wood
- Bulets over Broadway
- Pulp Fiction
- Farinelli
- Clear and Present Danger
- Only You
- Black Beauty
- Don Juan
- Priscilla: Queen of the Desert
- The Shawshank Redemption
- The River Wild
- Stargate
- It Could Happen To you
- Immortal Beloved

I could go on. Surely, this is a personal opinion. But its note debatable either ;)

Same goes from albums. 1994 was an absolute watershed.

Seen some of his videos, gods help me! — Vera Mont

Ah yep, fair. Would you like any that show his other side? Well, tbf, he has several - but he is often, quite extremely misconstrued. That said, there are plenty of examples of non-misconstrued videos of his that are batshit. LOL. Wondered if you wanted the humanizing aspect.

Aren't we all? Isn't that the purpose of this present endeavour? — Vera Mont

LOL, yes I suppose so. Probably better if more and more understand these discussions to be such.