Not in this world necessarily though so who cares?

Yes, but the argument is that if someone says it is worthwhile, negative X is ok to start on their behalf, even if it was unnecessary (didn't need to ameliorate a greater harm for that person). khaled says this for example. — schopenhauer1

I never said this. I denied it was negative. And you weren’t able to show why it is. “Human condition” you insist despite virtually everyone disagreeing.

You're confident I'm wrong, yes? Odd. Why so confident? — Bartricks

Because what you write is moronic. As I was reading your last response I couldn’t go 3 words without thinking of a paragraph in response to your stupidity. I don’t want to write a book just to convince a muppet, especially if I’m getting berated the whole way for trying to help it.

You seem to equate someone giving up on responding to you with proof that you are right. When in reality the reason people stop responding to you is that they lose patience and can no longer deal with your attitude, and sheer stupidity. You should publish this nonsense. Then when everyone tears it to shreds you might want to rethink your position. Though I bet if the whole world was convinced you’re wrong you still wouldn’t budge. You’d argue with each person individually until you tire them all out, then think you’re right.

I hope for the sake of everyone that you’re just trolling.

Can you come up with an imposition that is less egregious than life that we nonetheless find bad enough that it’s wrong to impose? You’d have a pretty good case then.

On the other hand if anyone can come up with an imposition more egregious than life that you think is ok to impose they’d have a pretty good case to the contrary.

Did you think people take these literally?

Don't most people think in little maxims like these? — Bartricks

No…. You clearly don’t listen to people very often.

I deny that there are any necessary truths. So you have to generate a contradiction without assuming that there are necessary truths — Bartricks

Similarly, I deny that God is subject to time. So you have to generate a contradiction without assuming that God is subject to time.

Your example didn't work. I explained why. — Bartricks

When would he do that? — Bartricks

Assumes God is subject to time. Try again. Or is there some explanation I'm missing that doesn't assume God is subject to time? Quote it then.

I do not know if we deserve every specific harm that befalls us, or just the exposure to the risk. — Bartricks

You should because you just said:

I do not believe all rape victims deserve to be raped. — Bartricks

So it must be the latter.

And this belief also implies that you accept that some people suffer more than they deserve (unsupervised exposure to risk will eventually result in someone suffering more than they deserve, rape victims for example). If so:

Despite having the ability to make it otherwise, why did God choose to make it possible that some people are punished much more than they deserve? — khaled

Choosing to make it possible for people to suffer unjustly, when you could just as easily make it otherwise is evil, correct? Not something an omnibenevolent being would do, correct?

So it's either
1- God is not omnibenevolent.
2- Everyone deserves each specific harm that happens to them.

Which is it?

But God does not have to know what happens to us here. Indeed, why would he care? — Bartricks

Because he's omnibenevolent so should care to ensure that no one is suffering too harshly, as that would be unjust. If he doesn't care to make sure that people aren't suffering too harshly for what they deserve, that's evil, making him not omnibenevolent. And as he's omnipotent he can choose to make it so that he knows what happens here. So the two attributes combined mean that he should indeed know what's going on here.

What do you make of this Khaled? — Albero

It would be just as easy to come up with a 100 positive things. Are you for real with #23? Having kids is wrong because of insomnia? Really? Makes as much sense as "Having kids is ethical because they can eat Kit-Kats"

As it stands it's a pointless list. I'd just repeat this:

So your problem is, when you cite a standard it either:

1- Contradicts your other beliefs by not being sufficiently specific in scope and resulting in things you think are right coming out wrong

2- Is unlike life and so doesn't actually say anything about childbirth.

Of course, you think it's like life, but you don't want to say this, because you know it sounds ridiculous to everyone else. So instead you prefer to have (1) be the case rather than reveal that really, the only reason you're AN, is because you find life: "a lifetime worth of X negative things otherwise dire consequences happen". — khaled

Shope thinks having kids is wrong because he sees life on earth as hell. The disagreement isn't about ethical values, it's about how bad life is. Most don’t think it’s bad enough for having kids to be wrong. He does, but when it becomes an argument about what is or is not bad enough, it’s very hard to reach consensus.

I think what you’re describing is close to Identity theory in theory of mind. The intro on SEP explains it better than I could.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/mind-identity/

No. If time exists, then the things that exist - trees, minds, whatever - exist in time. — Bartricks

This is precisely what I disagree with. I already said that it is possible for a mind (God) to exist outside of time and gave an image of it. So no, not everything must exist in time. Restating that over and over doesn't make a case. And the reason I make an exception for your God is that he's capable of exempting himself. He can make it the case that he created time, and is also not subject to it. So it's entirely possible that he is not subject to it, that wouldn't even violate any laws of reason (it's not a contradiction, it would just show that the premise that everything exists in time is wrong). Certainly one of the more tame things your God can do.

It doesn't at all appear obvious to me that God must be subject to time, because it doesn't appear obvious to me that all minds, or all things are subject to it, possible exception: God. Remember, I'm not making the case that God is indeed not subject to time, I'm saying you haven't shown he is.

It seems what appears to me to be the case is not what appears to you to be the case. Which brings us back to when you decide whether to trust what appears to you or what appears to others.

I believe that we all deserve to be exposed to the risks of harm that living in ignorance in this world exposes us to. — Bartricks

Bullshit. That's not what you were originally saying.

No, I don't think so. First, consider that I think everything that happens here is just. — Bartricks

So that means that no matter what I do to someone else, that person deserves it, and no matter what anyone does to me, I deserve it. — Bartricks

You just came up with the "risk of harm" bs to avoid an uncomfortable conclusion. "No matter what I do to someone else they deserve it" applies to everyone in your system, which means that rape victims deserved it, all of them.

But ok, let's say you didn't. That you intended to say that we simply deserve to be exposed to risks (though I really don't see how "no matter what I do to someone they deserved it" can be reinterpreted to that). You also believe this correct?:

I do not believe all rape victims deserve to be raped. — Bartricks

Thus it is possible there will be rape victims that did not deserve to be raped, who have to suffer it (and some deserve it, apparently). God knew this too correct? He is omniscient after all. Even if free will implied that he doesn't know the future if you and me can reason to it surely God could too.

So why is God being lazy? Why put people who deserve different degrees of punishment in the same spot? God could have created a private world for each person where they would be punished exactly as deserved, but he didn't do so. Instead he either chose, or was only able to, make a world to send different degrees of sinners. But this will result in some being punished too hard, which is wicked, and some being punished too lightly which could also be thought to be wicked. So despite having the ability to make it otherwise, why did God choose to make it possible that some people are punished much more than they deserve? That's clearly wrong, and would mean God is not omnibenevolent. Or was he actually incapable of making these private worlds so settled on a less optimal solution, making him not omnipotent?

But anyway, if or when appearances conflict, then our faculty of reason appears to be unreliable on that matter, yes? — Bartricks

I didn't say this, what? When appearances conflict for me I try to find to what extent each is true.

I really should stop

The view that everything Reason says is true is not a view I have ever expressed. It's not one I hold. — Bartricks

And I apologize for misinterpreting you, for the third time. You won Bart! You actually have an idea that makes sense! Good job! Now, here is your homework.

1- Getting back to the OP:

I asked you to prove why all minds are subjects of time. You asked me to make the appearance of a mind that's not in time. I did so. Now we're pending your proof. — khaled

And what is the significance of your question about a tree out of time?

But since you apparently don’t want to get back to the OP:

2- What do you do when appearances lead to apparently false conclusions, like rape victims deserving it:

you came to the conclusion that a rape victim deserves to be raped (because God wouldn't allow someone innocent to suffer unnecessarily so they must have not been innocent/they deserved it), which I dare say is very contrary to appearances, by logically following the consequences of different appearances. But instead of doubting your conclusion, you decided that indeed, rape victims deserve to be raped. Why that decision? — khaled

3- What do you do when what appears to you is different from what appears to others:

And it is very clear that much of what appears true to you doesn't appear to be true to a majority of people but at the same time you frequently make points about how some statements appear true to a majority by referring to expert opinion and whatnot. How do you decide when to trust what appears to you to be the case, and when to revise your position in light of what appears to other people? — khaled

Have fun!

Ok last one, it's 2 am here.

You then asked why I trusted reason - which note, was not something I had said. I had not said the I think everything reason says is true. — Bartricks

Then we should be in agreement! I was arguing against this position which you deny supporting, what's the issue?

we are default justified in trusting rational appearances and thus can safely conclude that the law of non-contradiction is true. — Bartricks

But I always thought so (note, this is a very different claim from the one I was arguing against which is that everything reason says is true). I thought you had said that we should always trust reason. I was mistaken in that regard and admitted so:

Ah, that makes more sense. That's certainly more agreeable. The way you defended her trustworthiness made it seem like you believe she never lies. — khaled

You tell me to:

stop driving the discussion into the stands of broader issues in epistemology. — Bartricks

But here you are still dwelling on a point about broader issues in epistemology, when I had already returned to our discussion of the OP here:

I asked you to prove why all minds are subjects of time. You asked me to make the appearance of a mind that's not in time. I did so. Now we're pending your proof. — khaled

Is this characterization inaccurate somehow?

What am I being crude about exactly? I don't understand what you want me to address.

Now, on the topic of broader issues in epistemology:

broader issues in epistemology tend to come in a lot in any argument. You rely a lot on appearances so you must have some consistent way of sorting through what to do when appearances contradict, either your own with each other, or your own with others'.

For instance, you came to the conclusion that a rape victim deserves to be raped (because God wouldn't allow someone innocent to suffer unnecessarily so they must have not been innocent/they deserved it), which I dare say is very contrary to appearances, by logically following the consequences of different appearances. But instead of doubting your conclusion, you decided that indeed, rape victims deserve to be raped. Why that decision?

And it is very clear that much of what appears true to you doesn't appear to be true to a majority of people but at the same time you frequently make points about how some statements appear true to a majority by referring to expert opinion and whatnot. How do you decide when to trust what appears to you to be the case, and when to revise your position in light of what appears to other people? — khaled

Or do you want to get back to the significance of a tree out of time? Up to you, but I bet these "broader discussions in epistemology" will come up sooner or later so I'd address them now.

i don't think Reason doesn't lie; I have never said that. The point is that one default trusts Reason — Bartricks

Ah, that makes more sense. That's certainly more agreeable. The way you defended her trustworthiness made it seem like you believe she never lies.

Now address the OP and stop driving the discussion into the stands of broader issues in epistemology. — Bartricks

Well I did. I asked you to prove why all minds are subjects of time. You asked me to make the appearance of a mind that's not in time. I did so. Now we're pending your proof.

And broader issues in epistemology tend to come in a lot in any argument. You rely a lot on appearances so you must have some consistent way of sorting through what to do when appearances contradict, either your own with each other, or your own with others'.

For instance, you came to the conclusion that a rape victim deserves to be raped (because God wouldn't allow someone innocent to suffer unnecessarily so they must have not been innocent/they deserved it), which I dare say is very contrary to appearances, by logically following the consequences of different appearances. But instead of doubting your conclusion, you decided that indeed, rape victims deserve to be raped. Why that decision?

And it is very clear that much of what appears true to you doesn't appear to be true to a majority of people but at the same time you frequently make points about how some statements appear true to a majority by referring to expert opinion and whatnot. How do you decide when to trust what appears to you to be the case, and when to revise your position in light of what appears to other people?

I'm going to sleep now. Nice chat bart.

Because she's pretty, that's why. — Bartricks

Really? What does she look like?

Now, for the rest? What happens when appearances contradict, like by having "The rape victim deserved it" come out as a conclusion? What happens when people have different appearances? What's the point of the tree?

by your own admission, is a stupid question — Bartricks

False. I said that normally it'd be stupid but your definitions make it important.

Anyway, either you think there's a reason to think reason is not trustworthy- in which case you trust her about that at least (which is irrational as of all the things an untrustworthy person might say, they are unlikely to tell you they are not trustworthy!) - or you think there is no reason not to trust reason,in which case you trust her. — Bartricks

No. I think your formulation makes it so that there is no reason to trust or distrust. I'm not definitively saying she is lying, you are saying she is definitively not lying, and I'm pointing out that your framework does not allow you to make that case.

Why can't you just address a comment in its entirety?

What is your policy when following one appearance leads to a conclusion that clearly appears to be false? Like, for example, it being true that the rape victim deserved what happened to them (which you think is true, yes?) being a consequence of you reasoning from what appears to be true. What do you do then? — khaled

And add to that, what do you do when people don't see the same appearances.

Describe to me how a tree and time can exist, yet the tree not be present, future or past. — Bartricks

What would this accomplish? Even if I couldn't, what would that prove?

Because one has the burden of proof when what one is claiming is contrary to the appearances. — Bartricks

Well the point is, it doesn't appear to me that minds must all be in present, future or past. Because the existence of minds as you describe them appears to me to be clearly contrary to reality.

What is your policy when following one appearance leads to a conclusion that clearly appears to be false? Like, for example, it being true that the rape victim deserved what happened to them (which you think is true, yes?) being a consequence of you reasoning from what appears to be true. What do you do then?

Now, once more, describe to me how a mind and time can exist, yet the mind not be present, future or past. That is to say, generate that appearance. — Bartricks

A disembodied head looking at a timeline of events, while not itself being at any one time.

Now, do you plan to address this:

I am so sure because my reason, like the reason of most others, tells me that no true proposition is also false.
— Bartricks

Why do you trust your reason? Why is reason trustworthy?

Normally these would be very stupid questions, but your definition of reason is unlike most. Reason, to you, is a mind, a person, who tells you the rules of thought. Why do you trust them?

They're capable of contradictions, they can make it so that a proposition is true and false at the same time, and NOT tell you that they have done so. So why do you trust that they haven't done so? — khaled

Yes. Now reply to the rest of the comment. And state what standard you propose for determining burden of proof.

Reply to the rest of the comment you coward.

As you have asserted that the one who asserts something has the burden of proof, will you discharge that burden in respect of that assertion please. — Bartricks

You're right, I can't.

Now why do I have the burden of proof? What's your standard by which you determine that I have it? If "the one that pushes a position has burden of proof" isn't what you're using, what are you using?

To the first bit: burden of proof is on you. — Bartricks

No it isn't. I'm not definitively saying that a mind can exist outside of time. You're the one that's definitively saying it can't. The one pushing a position has to prove their premises. I don't care if a mind can exist outside of time or not because I find your formulation of mind idiotic in the first place, so I don't care to investigate.

I am so sure because my reason, like the reason of most others, tells me that no true proposition is also false. — Bartricks

Why do you trust your reason? Why is reason trustworthy?

Normally these would be very stupid questions, but your definition of reason is unlike most. Reason, to you, is a mind, a person, who tells you the rules of thought. Why do you trust them?

They're capable of contradictions, they can make it so that a proposition is true and false at the same time, and NOT tell you that they have done so. So why do you trust that they haven't done so?

They. Exhaust. The. Possibilities. — Bartricks

No no no. Sure if a mind were to exist and were to be subject to time, it would have to be either past, present, or future. But what is the proof that minds are all subject to time in the first place?

But I believe there are none. If a proposition is true, it is not also false. — Bartricks

What makes you sure?

What if, God has actually made it so that propositions can be true and false at the same time, and tricked us into thinking that if a proposition is true it is not false?

You have no evidence that what she tells you is reality, because she told you the laws of reason, so you cannot use those laws to argue that she's not lying, they're precisely what's under suspicion.

Once more: if time exists, then an existent mind is either past, present or future. Those exhaust the possibilities. — Bartricks

This was not the original formulation. If your intent was to say this, what you actually said was way off the mark.

So, where's your proof that if time exists all minds are either past, present or future?

I have never argued that minds are not bodies because we can say 'I have a body'. — Bartricks

Fair enough. For once you're right.

I think there are no true contradictions. — Bartricks

But you think there could be.

From this we can conclude that God created time. Why? Because if time exists, then one is subject to it. And so if God did not create time, then God would be subject to something he did not create, which is incompatible with being omnipotent. — Bartricks

Or God could've made it so that she paradoxically did not create time, while still remaining omnipotent (since you think contradictions are possible). And furthermore she could've made it so that our reason would lead to the above conclusion. What makes you think that she didn't do that combination instead of what you're saying here? What if your God was a deceiver?

The statement to prove: "If time existed, God would be subject to it"

A premise in the proof:

But if time does exist, then God's mind will either exist in the present, or in the past, or in the future, or some combination. — Bartricks

Shortened to: "If time exists, God would be subject to it"

In philosophical circles that's called begging the question. You probably don't think it's begging the question and will accuse me of not knowing what I'm talking about. But that's just the dunning kruger effect.

Also you want to be really careful here:

God's mind — Bartricks

God IS a mind according to you (he isn't, I'm just going by what you say). Remember one of your brilliant arguments for why the mind is different from a body is that we can say "I have a body". You make a point of making fun of any materialists by lines such as: "I have a car I am not my car". You wouldn't want someone to start saying "God has a mind, God is not his mind" right?

That's how philosophy works. You say something and it's true. No need for arguments. — Bartricks

But time is different. If time exists, then we are all subject to it, God included. — Bartricks

That’s what you seem to think yes.

Why the reluctance to address this? It’s the third time I repeat it now:

How can the mind that determines what is reasonable, lift a rock? Or can it not? How can the mind that determines what is reasonable affect those that refuse to listen to reason such as yourself? Or can it not? — khaled

No, to be reason doesn’t make you omnipotent. As there are still things you can’t do. Like lift a rock (as opposed to making reasonable people believe it was lifted) or make someone who doesn’t listen to reason do something. An inability to do those implies that deciding what is reasonable to believe does not make one omnipotent.

Now for the rest of your response:

Once more: to be all powerful requires being Reason. And morality is essentially a subset of Reason's directives. Thus being all powerful is going essentially to involve being the creator of morality. — Bartricks

Let’s assume for a second that being reason = being omnipotent. Even then:

God did not need to create the moral directives did he? He did create them, but he didn’t need to correct? Similar to the law of non contradiction:

Yes, she is not bound by the law as it is her law. But as she is telling us that no true proposition is also false, we can safely assume that it is indeed the case that no true proposition is also false. So, the law of non-contradiction is true. It is just not necessarily true. — Bartricks

God determines what is reasonable to believe and what is not reasonable, he could’ve been completely silent on the topic of what’s right and wrong and not provided us with any reasons to believe this or that is right or wrong. In that case he’d still be omnipotent yes? So it seems that creating morality is not necessary for omnipotence

As you even say yourself:

there is no contradiction involved in there existing an omnipotent being who has created nothing. — Bartricks

Morality is - must be - God's creation, for were it not, God would not be omnipotent. — Bartricks

The above two statements contradict. One says that God doesn’t need to create anything to be omnipotent. The other says that morality must be his creation for him to be omnipotent.

And what evidence do you have that it was a singular mind that told us the imperatives of reason anyways? Why could it be a group of human minds? Where did you get the idea that all of it comes from one source?

I have done this several times now, but you have this firm conviction - do you not - that I am confused and talking nonsense — Bartricks

Correct. Because it is what is reasonable to believe.

If Bartricks is not talking nonsense, then I, Khaled, am a fool. — Bartricks

But no, I have no such fears. Even if you’re right that doesn’t necessarily make me a fool. I’ve openly admitted to being wrong on the site multiple times, but I’m not wrong in this case.

I just presented an argument showing why morality is God's creation — Bartricks

That’s not what I asked for. I was asking for the “other direction”. You claim we can either go from morality to God or God to morality I’m asking for the latter. You said:

Morality is - must be - God's creation, for were it not, God would not be omnipotent — Bartricks

Explain this claim. The claims that morality is Gods creation, and that creating morality is required for omnipotence are vastly different.

And yes, I do not believe that omnipotence requires having to have created everything. — Bartricks

But it requires having to create morality? Why?

it does involve being Reason — Bartricks

If God is omnipotent he can make anyone do anything correct?

Also the only thing God can do is determine what is reasonable (being reason and all that)

How can God make someone who doesn’t listen to reason do something?

How can the mind that determines what is reasonable, lift a rock? Or can it not? How can the mind that determines what is reasonable affect those that refuse to listen to reason such as yourself? Or can it not? — khaled

Or both:

minds 'depend' for their existence on bodies. — Bartricks

And

minds, despite not being bodies, nevertheless have sexes. — Bartricks

Once again, the options you presented are simply the easiest to refute, not all options.

Morality is - must be - God's creation, for were it not, God would not be omnipotent. — Bartricks

Explain. You frequently talk about how you don’t think God created everything. So why is this particular creation required to be omnipotent?

And that mind will, by dint of being Reason, be all-powerful. For Reason determines everything - what's true, what's known and so on. — Bartricks

False. Reason does not determine everything. It determines what we have reason to believe is true, which is different from what is true.

How can the mind that determines what is reasonable, lift a rock? Or can it not? How can the mind that determines what is reasonable affect those that refuse to listen to reason such as yourself? Or can it not?

With negligence, there is no issue of permissibility; negligence "just happens". We wish it wouldn't happen, but it does. — baker

I highly doubt this is how you see childbirth. Do you wish people stopped having kids? Do you think it’s wrong to have kids?

If you have evidence that brains have certain components, then to get from that to the conclusion that minds have those components, one would have to add the premise that our minds are our brains. — Bartricks

But he didn’t say brains have certain components therefore minds have them too, did he?

He said: Everything that thinks has X component, we know that from experience.

He’s not saying “minds have X component since brains have them”, but that’s how you choose to interpret it so you can get your dopamine kick from “destroying the argument with facts and logic”

Or you could be charitable. For instance he could mean:

Every mind we know has a material carrier. — SolarWind

Which even keeps your dualistic notion of minds and matter and I would bet would be the immediate interpretation most have.

Or he could be a monist that thinks “minds are configurations of brains”. In that case he can be saying “the physical pattern known as ‘mind’ includes having X component”. In the same way sound waves necessarily have a wavelength.

Or any number of other charitable interpretations. And this is why no one wants to respond to you anymore. Because it’s very tedious getting you to understand what they’re saying. You will always read into it what you find easy to refute. All the while complaining about how no one understands poor you.

Brute possibilities are not evidence — Bartricks

I am not giving evidence. I am showing this:

To get from the former conclusion to the latter you would have to assume that brains are minds. — Bartricks

Is false. That’s just the argument you find easiest to dismantle and so you put it in the mouth of your interlocutor so you can “slam dunk” them with you water gun of logic.

Likewise, there is no evidence that minds are made of matter and plenty that they are not. — Bartricks

Good thing I didn’t say minds are made of matter then did I? Configurations of matter =/= matter.

If our minds are our brains — Bartricks

Not what I said again is it?

As I said, you argue against imaginary positions you believe (or worse, pretend) the opposition has said and drown out what they’re actually saying in irrelevant responses to the straw man you created.

When you had your lobotomy, part of your brain was removed. So you went from having 100% of a brain to having 95%. — Bartricks

Why the need for ad Homs I ask? I get being like that with me, but you’ve never even talked to this guy before. Get a therapist Bart.

What we know from experience, boyo, is that brains have such components, not that minds do. To get from the former conclusion to the latter you would have to assume that brains are minds. Yet they're not. — Bartricks

Not necessarily. An alternative is that minds are certain configurations of matter (brains). In that case the statement:

Everything that thinks has nonlinear components — SolarWind

Remains true without needing a dualism.

it will retreat to "dunning kruger" — khaled

goes around asking for qualifications without presenting any on its part. — khaled

Don't engage it. Among other ridiculous claims, it believes that life on Earth is hell where the wicked are sentenced for punishment and that whatever happens to you here, you deserve it. It also believes that if you disagree with it its necessarily because you lack expertise, and goes around asking for qualifications without presenting any on its part. It also can't see the irony here:

When reality is at home? — GraveItty

You can't answer a question with a question, can you? — Bartricks

Engaging it is reserved for masochists. When you begin to get anywhere it will retreat to "dunning kruger" or "this is how it is present to my reason" but it will take you 70 posts to get to that point.

The only clever things that come out of its mouth are ad homs. Which I have to say are top notch.

If you classify acts where there is no malicious intent, but there is knowledge that the act will harm as “negligent”. And negligence is not ok. By that formulation wouldn’t having children count as negligent? Why would it be permissible then?

Ok. But does Z get to cause X to alleviate Y if Y>X? That's what I'm asking (for the third time).
— khaled

First off, you discount the pain of what happens when one does NOT like aspects of the game, whether or not someone reports "The game was worthwhile". What these setbacks/negatives/pains/harms/sufferings comprise of is what it is, and it is not good. Is starting a series of these plethora of negatives upon someone else good? I think no. It is not right to do to someone whether or not they report that it was worth their while. — schopenhauer1

Is this a no? Because you just don't like being straightforward.

If you knew your child would invent painkillers would it be wrong to have them?

Ok, but when in a position to not start someone else's set of harms, I just don't think post-facto justifications like "it was worthwhile" justify actually starting those set of harms for someone else. Haven't we acknowledged from previous threads, that this is one of the main dividing lines where we both will not budge? — schopenhauer1

Well that's not quite enough, is it? I don't care to convince people to have kids. You care to do the opposite. So you must make a case for why post-facto justifications don't, you know, justify, doing something.

Again, moot if we are discussing whether starting someone else's set of harms is justified in the first place. And of course this will just make you retreat to the one aspect to all aspects one-to-set disanalogy of the surprise party right? — schopenhauer1

Well, no. But I will ask you again to justify your position that justifications don't justify. As you're trying to convince people of that.

Again, you are not able to answer why considerations of pain are justified by worthwhile reports. — schopenhauer1

Remember, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything regarding having children. So no, I don't need to justify why it's ok to inflict on someone something they'd be fine with. It's an axiomatic difference as you say. But you need to say why it isn't as you're the one pushing an agenda.

"This starts another persons condition for a set of negative experiences" is insufficient, and so to get you to show your ridiculous position by requiring you to use the whole list.
— khaled

A set of negative experiences that comprises life is not a surprise party, so no, I am not letting you make that rhetorical summersault and pretend it is valid.. Sorry. — schopenhauer1

And now you'll protest "But Life is unlike surprise parties". Agreed. This wasn't to show that life is fine because it's like surprise parties, no no. It was to show that "This starts another persons condition for a set of negative experiences" is insufficient — khaled

You take a line out of context to perform a rhetorical summersault where you "bust" me for performing a supposed rhetorical summersault.

I think that enacting positive experiences for someone else is not a requirement, and especially so if they don't even exist. — schopenhauer1

I never disagreed. How did you get that from what I said?

However clearly you find that the existence of positive experiences can justify doing an action, like with surprise parties. So, when most people agree that life is mostly positive, why wouldn't that justify life? They're all wrong about the "human condition" and you know it better than them?

Preventing unnecessary pain is just morally relevant, and creating happiness is not — schopenhauer1

That's not what you think. Surprise parties cause some unnecessary suffering. But create enough happiness to justify it.

"Oh surprise parties are unlike life". I never said they were alike. I was establishing that you clearly think creating pleasure justifies inflicting some unnecessary suffering. I'll repeat it again, since saying it once didn't seem to stick last time: I was establishing that you clearly think creating pleasure justifies inflicting some unnecessary suffering.

If you had a pin that would give whoever you pricked by it a million dollars, but only if you didn't ask for consent beforehand, would it be wrong to go around pricking people? That's unnecessary suffering imposed to create a much greater amount of happiness. No, it's not like life, it's not my goal to say that this situation justifies having kids. I repeat: No, it's not like life, it's not my goal to say that this situation justifies having kids.

You are just going to keep changing the circumstances, because the kind of utopia without suffering is hard to even conceptualize — schopenhauer1

Good thing mine isn't without suffering.

so from the (easier) statistical point of view, we can say there are possibly enough people that experience this to not enact this for someone else. — schopenhauer1

So how big does the percentage have to be? If life was hellish suffering for 50% I'd agree. If it was 30 or 20% I'd probably still agree. What's your number? Because as far as I know, it's in the single digits.

Again, one of our dividing lines. I don't think it has to be hellish suffering to not start for someone else. — schopenhauer1

And again, one you have to bridge as you're the one making the case. Most wouldn't characterize their life as "a lifetime full of suffering". What makes you think this is human condition and not your condition? Everyone seems to disagree with you that it's human condition. What makes you sure you're right despite of that?

The natural world has created us, but we do not seem in the same way "at home" in it in the very fact that since the start of civilizations (and probably since we've had the ability to self-evaluate and use language), we can judge the very process of living itself (or at least aspects in it) and we can judge any action as negative. We don't just experience the negative, but evaluate it, judge it, know it. We can try to pretend we can outwit ourselves, but it is really part of our psyche.. even the "overcoming" of "judging" is itself something that we have to do as an effort, not as an instinct.. So anyways, this is not tangential to the point that there is a "human condition" that is apart from perhaps the more primary/common "animal condition". — schopenhauer1

Agreed. And most have judged life as positive or worthwhile. Most have judged that having kids is ok. And most have judged that the human condition is not doom and gloom. You think they're all wrong. Show your evidence.

There is no X that suffers anything.
There is a Y that suffers something.
That does NOT mean Y gets to now have an X that will suffer something to alleviate Y suffering something. — schopenhauer1

Ok. But does Z get to cause X to alleviate Y if Y>X? That's what I'm asking (for the third time).

Why does worthwhile trump negative experiences? — schopenhauer1

That's what it means by definition... You ever heard someone say "It was worthwhile and fulfilling, but I wish I never did it"? Worthwhile literally means that the negative experiences were worth it.

Definition according to google: worth the time, money, or effort spent; of value or importance.

Who gives you a right to start another persons condition for a set of negative experiences? — schopenhauer1

Will you stop? We've been over this. You're doing it again. You're highlighting one part of the list and pretending that's what you use to judge right and wrong, when it isn't, to pretend to have some form of objectivity or simple, righteous moral compass. You're fine with surprise parties even though they are another persons condition for a set of negative experiences. So stop pretending that's what classifies right and wrong for you. And now you'll protest "But Life is unlike surprise parties". Agreed. This wasn't to show that life is fine because it's like surprise parties, no no. It was to show that "This starts another persons condition for a set of negative experiences" is insufficient, and so to get you to show your ridiculous position by requiring you to use the whole list.

Yes actually, I can list a litany of negative experiences. — schopenhauer1

And I can list a litany of positive or worthwhile ones.

But again, I was looking for clarity of the statement, (is it a list of things, an attitude, a report) and if it's a report, what is it reporting on? — schopenhauer1

A report. On whether or not the project was worth it despite the pain. Or on whether or not it is mostly comprised of negative or positive experiences. Depends on who you're talking to.

So yeah this is precisely your problem. Analogies of everything that comprises a set to only one aspect of the set doesn't work, except as a parlor trick. — schopenhauer1

But it doesn't comprise only one aspect, it comprises most at the same time. But when we look at all of them combined it spells something like "Do not cause hellish suffering for a lifetime on someone else" which is perfectly reasonable, now you need to show that life will likely be hellish suffering for this or that child.

"Life is an unconsented imposition, and those are always wrong", I'll disagree with the second half, it's hard to disagree with the first.

"Life is an imposition that's difficult to escape, and those are always wrong" I'll disagree with the second half, it's hard to disagree with the first.

"Life starts the condition for harm, that's always wrong" (what you said this comment) I'll disagree with the second half, it's hard to disagree with the first.

"Life is all of the above at the same time, and that's wrong to impose" I'll disagree with the second half (utopia example), it's hard to disagree with the first.

And so we keep going until we get to:

"Life is comprised of a lifetime of hellish suffering with no escape and we're all doomed, and those are always wrong to impose" I'll disagree with the first half, it's hard to disagree with the second.

Again:

So your problem is, when you cite a standard it either:

1- Contradicts your other beliefs by not being sufficiently specific in scope and resulting in things you think are right coming out wrong

2- Is unlike life and so doesn't actually say anything about childbirth. — khaled

Why do I even need evidence at all? What is going on here? — schopenhauer1

Because you are trying to convince others that disagree with your judgement that their judgement is wrong and your is correct. You need evidence to do so. Your judgement is that life is mostly comprised of negative experiences, and that those experiences are not worth it and so do not justify existing. Basically everyone disagrees with one or both parts. You think they're wrong and want to convince them of that. You need evidence.

Something else is going on in the human condition that doesn't just allow for, "I mostly like life". — schopenhauer1

I thought you were struggling with what that means a second ago. Now that I see you're past your confusion before my reply is even up (showing you never struggled with what it means), this amounts to: "You're wrong, life isn't mostly good, because it just isn't"

Not very convincing I'm afraid. Again, what makes you think this is the human condition and not your condition? Despite most humans openly voicing that they like life. Do most humans fail to understand the condition they're living in, and you in your infinite wisdom have grasped it fully for everyone for all time? What's your evidence that's the case?

Weren't you arguing against it yesterday?

That looks more like negligence. — baker

Would that make it ok?

Do we not have an epistemic responsibility in life? If our actions have ripple effects, and our actions are largely an outgrowth of our beliefs, then isn't it irresponsible to believe in things that lead to harmful actions? Shouldn't we be more careful about what we believe in? — Xtrix

And the antivaxxers, provaxxers, flat earthers, round earthers(?), Democrats, Conservatives, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, and everyone else nodded in agreement. And all facepalmed when seeing the idiots do so too.

The key terms in such a case are intention and attempt. — baker

When would you say someone intends to do harm? If they know their actions will result in harm, does that automatically mean they intend to do harm? If this genetic modification is some religious ritual, and so the intention isn't to harm, but to fulfill the religious duty, in other words, there is no malice behind it, would it still count as "intent to harm"?

If you were trying to explain what anger is to an alien, would you consider that a complete description? I think it fails because it doesn't capture the essence about anger, pain, happiness, etc.: emotions are feelings. They are things we experience. — RogueAI

Ok then, how would you explain anger to an alien? How are you going to communicate the "essence" of anger?

And again, this is begging the question. You're implying my explanation is incomplete because feelings are nonphysical subjective things we experience. Assuming so already assumes physicalism is false, so is begging the question.

That would seem to be a problem for physicalists. How on Earth can you convey to someone the experiential nature of pain and anger with just a physical description? — RogueAI

Ah so it’s a problem when a physicalist cannot convey what pain is to someone else, but when an idealist/dualist says “Qualia are private and unknowable” it’s no longer a problem but a feature?

One case no suffering has to take place. — schopenhauer1

False. If you don't have children the people who would benefit from your children being around would be harmed. So in both cases suffering takes place. It comes down to whether or not harming someone to alleviate harm from someone else is ethical which you still haven't answered. You could easily argue that having children is necessary harm depending on how you actually answer the question....

not an explanation of what makes it a utopia — schopenhauer1

That you cannot suffer unless you choose to.

This game is more like I describe. YOU have to address that at least. — schopenhauer1

I think it's perfectly fine to bring in people to the game you describe and I already stated my standard clearly:

"It's fine to impose something on someone when it is very likely they will find it worthwhile (among other cases that are irrelevant here)" — khaled

Coincidentally, it is indeed very likely a child will find their life worthwhile if statistics are anything to go by. You don't like this standard. So I'm trying to follow your standard here, but you can't come up with one that's consistent with your own beliefs.

No dude, because unless that gift is a literally a lifetime of a set of negative experiences that you cannot get rid of without dire consequences, your analogies are nothing. — schopenhauer1

Ah ok, so the new standard is "it is a lifetime of negative experiences you cannot get rid of". Ok then, prove that life is a lifetime of negative experiences. What evidence do you have to support this statement?

There is a ton of evidence that shows that the majority of people enjoy their life on a balance, and find it worthwhile as well, and are very much against parting with it. What is your evidence that all these people are lying and that they're all Oscar worthy actors pretending to be happy when in fact they're miserable?

You can't try to win this argument by simply saying phrases like "prove it" when it is very clear they are so far off from each other and never even met my definitions. — schopenhauer1

Ah, I see. So having kids is wrong because life is mostly suffering. And life is mostly suffering because.... DUH it's obvious!!!!!

This is exactly as valid as someone reasoning that it's fine to have 50 children he can't provide for because life is "so obviously" pure bliss.

You can't dismiss a point of contention in an argument with "it's obvious I'm right". Especially when you provide 0 evidence for being right while there is tons of evidence showing that people don't think their life is as hellish as you describe.

I don't have to prove to you obvious things about the human condition. — schopenhauer1

"I'm right you're wrong, obviously. Yes I'm aware I'm the minority opinion here. Still I'm right you're wrong, because reasons"

What makes you think this is about the human condition and not just your condition? The majority of humans seem to disagree with your characterization of the human condition, shouldn't that cause some doubt?

Life "is mostly good".. what does that even mean? — schopenhauer1

Oh, so "life is mostly good" is very abstract and difficult to understand but:

is a literally a lifetime of a set of negative experiences — schopenhauer1

Is immediately obvious and clear.

But also, what standard gift ever has these kind of negative side effects? — schopenhauer1

Well it depends on the negative side effect, as I have a good analogy for each in vacuum. But you're asking me "What is something that's exactly like life that's not life". You know how analogies work right? They're supposed to highlight one aspect (negative effect) at a time, I obviously can't show all at once.

You cite A as the property that make an imposition bad, and A is present in having kids, so having kids is bad. I reply with a situation where A is the case, but you think the imposition is not bad. You respond by "that situation is not like life at all, life also has B!" (after realizing that "life isn't A enough!" is going nowhere and takes away objectivity from your position) So I respond with a situation where B and A are the case yet you think it's fine. You respond by "that situation is not like life at all, life also has C!" and so on. But when we examine the whole set of properties that make an imposition bad for you, they are actually pretty reasonable.

So why this clinical, bit by bit approach, where you pretend that one or two variables are the end all be all of what makes an imposition wrong? Why not just spill out the whole list? Well, because it sounds ridiculous! The whole list basically reads: "It's wrong to impose a lifetime of hellish suffering on someone" which is perfectly reasonable of course. Everyone agrees with that, but they don't think life is such hellish suffering, that's ridiculous. You realize that trying to convince them that life is hellish suffering doesn't work, so instead you try to pretend to follow some simplistic moral standard such as "Actions that are A and B are wrong". So when I show that you don't actually follow that simplistic standard, you have to revert back to the full set which is:

a lifetime worth of X negative things otherwise dire consequences happen. — schopenhauer1

is wrong to impose. That's what you see life as. Life is purely just negative experience after negative experience with the sweet release of death being the only cure. A "Sexually transmitted terminal disease" and no more as the memes would have it. But when I try to ask you what evidence you have for thinking this, you cannot provide.

So your problem is, when you cite a standard it either:

1- Contradicts your other beliefs by not being sufficiently specific in scope and resulting in things you think are right coming out wrong

2- Is unlike life and so doesn't actually say anything about childbirth.

Of course, you think it's like life, but you don't want to say this, because you know it sounds ridiculous to everyone else. So instead you prefer to have (1) be the case rather than reveal that really, the only reason you're AN, is because you find life: "a lifetime worth of X negative things otherwise dire consequences happen". Yours isn't a rational argument, it's purely emotional, as the claim that life is like this is completely unsubstantiated and there is mountains of evidence against it, yet you believe it. I find it hard to believe that comes from rational consideration.