Sure, but specifically to your comment about depriving Trump voters a voice I wondered whether you thought Trump should be deprived of his voice? Or were you doing a sarcastic impression of a Trump voter? (It can be hard to tell via text)

I love that people like Tim, who is living through a political moment in which an entire population of people voted for Trump because they felt their voice was not being heard, thinks the solution is to deprive people of voices even more.

One can only conclude that Tim is a Trump supporter. — StreetlightX

Im curious, do you think Trump should have been banned on twitter like he was?

For what reason can it not be said how much the pain hurts, as a matter of fact? — darthbarracuda

Because it is subjective, there is no fact of the matter that applies to everyone.

The pain example makes the exact same mistake. That is not a like example. A like example would be asking about how much pain. Whether she is in pain is a fact, how much the pain hurts is subjective.
Your last paragraph was just repeating the same mistake so clearly I have failed to make my point.
It looks like you moved on in your next post so Ill leave it at that.

Yes. Just as Stacey must believe that Paul is her boyfriend in order for Paul to be her boyfriend, Stacey must believe that she has a good life in order for her to have a good life. That is my claim. — darthbarracuda

Ok, so my point was that those two examples are not analogous. The first references facts, part of which is what “boyfriend” means by definition. The second references opinion, not facts. The two examples are not like and therefore acceptance of the first does not entail acceptance of the second.

Lets make sure Im not confused about what youre saying first.
For ease of reference, P1 = “recognition of a good life is necessary for a good life”

First you used

"Stacey has a boyfriend named Paul."

With an accompanying explanation. You then used

"Stacey has a good life." — darthbarracuda

With accompanying explanation. I read the intention of the two examples as an attempt to establish that if you accept the logic of the first then you have to accept the logic of the second since the two examples are the same in regard to P1. In other words, you wanted to show that your two examples are analogous in order to establish P1.

Is that correct?

Well I asked for your case for recognition of life being good required for a good life and you responded with your Stacey scenarios which I pointed out doesnt really support that recognition of life being good being required for a good life.
Now you are saying that you weren’t trying to make that case but rather a point about subjective/objective components.

So assuming there was a miscommunication I want to ask again, whats your case fir recognition of a good life required for a good life?

"Stacey has a boyfriend named Paul." — darthbarracuda

"Stacey has a good life." — darthbarracuda

These two statements are not analogous. The first is a statement about objective facts, the second you intended to to be statement about Staceys belief about her life which is subjective.
In order for your two statements to be analogous the “happy life” of the second statement would have to be referencing objective components/qualifiers of a happy life. As soon as you do that it completely undermines your point because then Staceys subjective opinion about her lifes happiness isnt determinate of Staceys happy life.
If thats your case for a good life requiring recognition of it being a good life I think it falls short sir.

“Life IS pain your highness, and anyone who tells you different is selling something”

Selling something like Elfism for example. :wink:

Okay, so you disagree with the initial premise. I never argued for it, that's fair. I did not include the possibility that utterances about life might be expressive rather than descriptive. If having a good life is not dependent on believing that one has a good life, then my argument fails, no question about it. But that's obvious. It is odd that it took you this long to make that point. — darthbarracuda

So do you have a good argument as to this expressive/descriptive distinction? It seems fairly obvious that a good life doesnt entail recognition of it, especially when one accepts life can be objectively bad or good.
Whats your case for a good life requiring belief that that life is good?

:lol:
:lol:

….

:lol:

Hysterical :rofl:

Like perfectly hysterical, from your delivery to my out loud laughter.

Look out everyone we’re all going to jail :rofl:
What are you? 10? 12?

:rofl:

Its strange for you to drop an OP and then act like a smug prick to everyone who responds. Get humble, your OP is not the rock solid argument you seem to think it is. At best your logic requires explaining, its not that clear to the reader where the strength of your argument lies.

42?

Well, all we can do is go in circles, you shout subjective, I shout objective, you shout subjective again, on and on. Same with the other guys here. So, perhaps we should stop, at least I will. I appreciate that particularly you went extensive on the matter, among the first. — RAW

I didn’t shout, I did my best to explain. It just doesnt seem like the counterpoints are registering to you, maybe Ive not made them well enough.
Anyway, suit yourself.

So in this extension of your previous thoughts you kind of admit that what you said earlier is incorrect but still you insist on "it's entirely subjective". — RAW

Its not an admission of anything, I was anticipating your counter argument which you just repeated instead of addressing my pre-emptive point. Then you created a fantasy where I was admitting to something.

Again with the "it's all subjective". Each individual will have nearly the same feelings about all of those things precisely for the reason/s I stated prior. Let me put it again, a subjective feeling by each of us of being torn apart by a pack of apex predators would be the same, we can all agree even in the absence of such experience that it's a profoundly terrible painful experience to go trough. Same goes for the other things in the negative list. The positive list? A subjective feeling by each of us of having an orgasm for example, is the same. My subjective experience of orgasm cannot possibly be "greatly" different than yours. It's one and the same thing.

So, we have consensus regarding both sides yet somehow, somehow, comparisons we do would be entirely subjective and greatly different. That's nonsense.

It really appears to me that you just subconsciously admitted that the asymmetry is true but consciously you refuse to accept it. Because I listed some of the greatest pleasures a life can offer (missed eating a delicious food) and yet you still think the bad side is far overweight. It really does look like an admission. Lets check this. Let us you do the positive list. Can you list about the same number of positive things I listed that aren't "petty and fleeting". Name positive feelings that, to you, are more intense and lasting than what has been listed or if you will, as intense and lasting as the examples on the bad side listed. — RAW

I already addressed these points, your are just repeating yourself.
Also, it is pure fantasy on your part that you have any idea what Im doing subconsciously.
Also, I didnt say “entirely subjective”, you did. I understand that there are commonalities between these experiences, but the experiences are subjective, there are differences in how people experience those bad things and how they let those experiences define whether life is worth living or not.

Lastly, you aren’t really addressing the points made. You are very focused on repeating your original points/argument, essentially just rewording your original stuff. If you are just repeating your original points that means you are not responding to counter points being made. Think about it.

Again, let's see your positive list that would establish the balance to say the least. Please, name 5-6 things that aren't petty and fleeting. — RAW

It would be as trivially easy as you listing bad ones. To what end?
The only reason I referenced your list was to point out how little thought you actually put into the positive ones. This speaks to my main point against you so far which is the skewed way you are looking at this. Focus on negative, ignore or marginalize the positive.
Skewed by your own subjective sense of the issue. Thats fine, whatever floats your boat. Other people do the same thing but vice versa.
Your argument isnt based in logic, its based on your pessimistic sense of the world. Im not saying you aren’t making use of logic, just that you do not have the objective, logical basis you think you do.

What is completely subjective? — RAW

Peoples ideas about whats good or bad about life and which ones are worthwhile tradeoffs. Thats going to vary greatly from person to person. Even if we accept that certain things are bad to everyone, it still wouldn't resolve anything about what bad things outweigh what good things and vice versa.

Can you be more specific, measure what, pain against pleasure? Consider this, an orgasm, having a wild sex with Charlize Theron, you being lucky you got the dream job, a child, a girl you wanted, PC to play a video game you really like -VS- you being eaten alive by a pack of lions, torn apart slowly by a giant bear, freezing to death, having your limbs cut off and living for the rest of your life with PTSD in a wheelchair unable to do anything without assistance, I mean I can go on and on and more disturbing? — RAW

This is all subjective. Each individual will have feelings and opinions about which of these things outweighs the others. Many people think having kids is worth the hardships of parenting, others do not.
Also your examples are completely one sided. All the negative ones are death and horror and the positive ones are almost all petty and fleeting.
Remember when I said you exalted the negative over the positive? Well thats what you’ve done here. Every point you are making is skewed towards the negative and thats your own subjective opinion about how the bad outweighs the good. That's true for you, but not for everyone.
You must be a pessimist in order for your arguments to work, and not everyone views things that way.

Which side of the two is sensationally stronger and more life impacting? — RAW

This depends on the person. Also, refer to my point about your skewed examples. Like look at your two lists, you picked some of the worst things you could think of for the negatives and the positives you picked sex and sex and work and “child” and sex again and a video game…
Do you honestly think you’ve made fair comparisons here? If those are the best things that you think life has to offer then you either lack imagination or need to broaden your horizons considerably and I mean that in the kindest, most helpful possible sense.

A person suffers in life but feels it's worth all the good stuff in it?

I'm not getting what you're trying to say here or what's the importance of it to what we're discussing here. I'm talking about life as a whole, taking every sentient being into account, not just some guy that had a terrible car accident and is in heavy pain but is still happy because his 3 kids survived without a scratch and are enjoying life. It's a bad deviant argument. — RAW

The point I was trying to make there was about the subjective nature of the measurements you are making regarding good and bad. Hopefully what I said above provides some clarity.

I appreciate the honest opinion. Isn't the imbalance between the 2 at the core of it, the observation that the negative, the suffering is 1. far greater / numerous 2. sensationally far stronger, 3. durationally far longer than the positive? — RAW

I think this is just what I said: exalting the negative, focusing only on the negative. How would you even begin measuring these things? They are completely subjective. There are people who are in objectively negative circumstances that none the less feel like the good outweighs the bad. Likewise there are those in objectively better/positive circumstances that none the less feel the bad outweighs the good.
There is no solid ground from which this argument can be made.

Didn't get this? If you mean what I think you mean, absolutely not. — RAW

Im skeptical, Ive seen many opening posts that sounded just like that, and turned out to be thinly veiled self promotion.
Certainly I could be wrong, and honestly I hope I am.

Considering the unimaginable amount of physical and mental pleasure that occurs every day on this planet, day by day, for millions of years and counting, as well perhaps on countless other planets, which would make the Universe essentially a giant pleasure chamber, the philosophical view of Efilism seems rather… — RAW

Your argument works equally well to establish the exact opposite of Elfism just by replacing two negative descriptors with positive descriptors. Its a weak and fallacious argument.
What are my thoughts on Elifism? Its fucking dumb. (you asked, thats my thought on it.)
Like Antinatalism it depends entirely on putting the negative in a lofty, exalted status and ignoring the positive altogether. It is a philosophy for the weak, the spineless, the whiny the immature and the wannabe clever. Elfism is the same…self indulgent garbage with no philosophical merit.
Also, Im calling it now: RAW is here to plug his stuff, not for discussion.

The ambiguity of what either one is, is part of the argument (points 2 & 3). — darthbarracuda

I know. Premise 1 is vague, and that vagueness is what the rest of your argument depends on. Thats my point, this is an ambiguity fallacy that you are using in your argument.

The ability to communicate and ideas.

A good life is worth living; conversely, a bad life is not worth living. — darthbarracuda

Premise 1 here is too vague for a first premise, it allows too much wriggle room for your other premises to make a really effective argument. I think with more details premise 1 will fail and the argument collapse.
What is it that constitutes a “bad life”? How are you defining what a bad life is?

Dont be intimidated by the philosophical masterbations of those types of threads. Its not a sign of high IQ but rather knowledge/education. People who learn big words like to use them, but the concepts don’t require the academic descriptions. You do have to learn some of the basic terms in order to keep up in the discussion but google will give you the gist of most of it.
If your interested in the word battles, you can ask for clarification on some of the terms. I’ve observed those with philosophical education are happy to clarify as long as they feel like you’ve put in the effort to learn the basic ideas behind the discussion. Otherwise you will be told to google it, or given a link.

You didnt debate it in the first place, you preached it. Also I didnt do any if those things, i asked a bunch of questions to better understand your position. Primarily I was wondering about how you view the soul as it pertains to this issue. You didnt really respond to any if them.

So what were you setting out to do in this thread that you already accomplished?

…so you aren’t interested in answering any questions, responding to any points or even providing counterpoints of your own?
This is a discussion forum, not a ranting forum. Can you please answer my questions and respond to points? If not, there is no reason to pretend youre addressing me by tagging my name to your post. Just leave my name out and rant to a general audience.

Arbitrary means random — Gregory

Ok, we have different ideas about what those words mean. I take random to mean having no reason fir a particular outcome other than chance. Arbitrary I take to mean having a reason, even if that reason has a subjective/personal basis.
Anyway, you didnt respond to the rest:

“These are attempts to find a base definition of what a human/person is, and many are based off of reason and biology, not randomly generated.”

A person is made from an egg and a sperm, from mother and father, not from one. — Gregory

I understand that is where you define personhood, at conception. What Im saying is that conception is just as “arbitrary” a place to define the start of personhood as heart or brain development. You have reasons for choosing conception as the starting point, the other side of view has reasons for choosing the formation of organs or whatever as the starting point. Both are equally “random”, you have just chosen a different starting point and for different reasons.

If it wasn't for the abortion issue biologists would be in agreement that human life starts at conception. It is the desire to make things other than they are they people say otherwise — Gregory

I think biologists ARE in agreement about human life starting at conception. “Human life” and “a person” are not the same thing though, so his is a non-sequitor.

What I was really hoping to get an answer on was:

That sounds like the soul is the merger of the soul and the body/matter, but thats a stretch of coherency. What is this thing that merges with the body to form the soul? The soul? That doesnt make sense. Where does the “pre soul” soul come from? The sperm? — DingoJones

Im interested in how you view the soul here…

Yes. Matter formed at conception is the soul. I don't subscribe to dualism. Humanity is the form but it is not separate from matter. The soul is all through the body and the body is all through the soul. We speak of them as two and must but I think they are really one.
— Gregory — DingoJones

Where does the soul come from? Does it exist prior to taking form in the fertilized egg? Does each parent have half a soul to share?
If the body and soul are the same, does the soul change as the body does?
I understand you are getting grief from people but please answer each of those questions, I mean them earnestly.

Yes. Matter formed at conception is the soul. I don't subscribe to dualism. Humanity is the form but it is not separate from matter. The soul is all through the body and the body is all through the soul. We speak of them as two and must but I think they are really one. — Gregory

That sounds like the soul is the merger of the soul and the body/matter, but thats a stretch of coherency. What is this thing that merges with the body to form the soul? The soul? That doesnt make sense. Where does the “pre soul” soul come from? The sperm?

On abortion, people are arguing, "first it must have a heart", "no a brain and a heart", "no kidneys too", "no it must be born". All these arguments are random. The form is there at conception and blossoms into different shapes of that form throughout life — Gregory

They aren’t random. I think you mean arbitrary? These are attempts to find a base definition of what a human/person is, and many are based off of reason and biology, not randomly generated.
Also, aren’t you making the same arbitrary (what you called random) move by saying “conception”? Why not go further back and consider human life the sperm, or the egg? The sperm or the egg are “ingredients” for a person in the same way the fertilized egg is an
“ingredient” for the person but for some reason you are making the cut off at fertilized egg. Thats no different in terms of arbitrary/random than making the cut off at being born or developing a heart.

Do you believe in a soul Gregory?

A fair point, but not a rebuttal to to my statement. Is your argument that because it takes time that we should just throw the “johns” under the bus? With limited resources choices must be made, priorities serviced. In the multitude of things to put resources towards there is room for both if anyone actually cared, but they dont.

Why can’t you do both though?
It seems like a bad idea to let criminals dictate policy.
Like, “Whoa whoa whoa fella. We can’t make that legal cuz the criminals will act up and we can’t have that”. Criminals will be criminals, the answer for me is to combat the criminal behaviours, not placate them. I mean, your plan is to punish the people (the johns) who participate in something you just made legal (for sex workers to sex work) instead of punishing the people who A) were the problem in the first place and B) are committing more crime and inflicting more suffering that they were before. (The human traffickers).
That seems pretty assbackwards to me. Is that justice?

It's not independent, it's related. Which is why human trafficking increased in the a Netherlands when prostitution was legalised. And while it makes sense for those who chose to become sex workers, or even those who were initially forced into it, for their own sake to pursue legalisation and unions that doesn't mean they understand the wider repercussions of such policies.

You can't just legalise and not expect demand to go up. — Benkei

Sure here are wider repercussions, but the correct answer isnt to make prostitution illegal, its to crack down on the criminal enterprise of human trafficking. Why can’t both be done?

Why do creationists and other stunned dummies get banned but this guy doesnt get banned for advocating the abuse of children? (Whether he admits it to us or himself or not, that IS what he is doing)
Just curious mods…just curious.

Can a bullet kill a guy who can neither see nor hear?
Our senses inform us about reality but reality doesn't give a shit about what our senses tell us.

Yes, that is the fact which underlies my point. While I agree that patriarchy tends to perpetuate brutality, I do not think it causes brutality "ab initio". Rather, I think that patriarchy initially arises from and is sustained by a general climate of brutality, wherein the concepts of compromise and diplomacy are non-existent. Thereafter, said climate of brutality and its patriarchal offspring are mutually supportive. — Michael Zwingli

Chicken and the egg.

One could argue that the brutality of the time was the symptom of patriarchy just as easily. We wouldn't need to have the warriors in charge if the other tribes had less warriors to. To the less enlightened of the before times might made right. We’ve grown up. Sorta.

502
Evolution has no need for love. Well no need for love between partners at least, maybe maternal and paternal love towards offspring yes, but as for partners all that is called for is sexual attraction/ lust. The convention of marriage is very much a legal and political thing regarding possession and responsibility towards children. — Benj96

Are you sure evolution has no need for love? How did you determine that it doesnt, given that we have evolved with love as part of our emotional range? Hasn’t love helped us survive as a species?

What’s the difference between simply being infatuated with someone and loving them? If you subscribe to the idea of love please explain why on earth we would need it. We are animals with a high rate of infidelity I would struggle to believe we are indeed as monogamous as culture and romcoms would dictate — Benj96

Well its hard to say exactly but the difference between infatuation and love seems a matter of degree, no?
Monogamy and love are not the same thing, nor does one require the other. People can and do en masse, love more than one person. Monogamy is a social control, a social contract of sorts.

Thank you. Our thinking is very different and I am curious about why that is so. You speak of a reality that is nothing like life was before the 19th century. Education before the 19th century would be liberal education and only a few men had a chance of being well educated, with a few exceptions. Some Protestant groups focused on the technological skill of reading so people could read the Bible for themselves but from there females were taught the domestic skills by their mothers, and males learned their father's trade or were sent to live with a man who would teach them a trade. However, the Quakers took a much stronger stand on empowering women than any other branches of Christianity and I think it was more influenced by the classics, playing a very strong role in forming the values of the US by participating in government at the Capital. The foundation of the culture was predominately Christian and the man was the head of the house, with God's authority that women did not have except for Quakers. That is patriarchy with Quakers and empowered women, playing a stronger role in shaping democracy than say the Mormons. — Athena

Im not sure your point here. It doesn't seem like any of that is controversial but neither does it seem relevant….I thought you were asking a question regarding which is better not for a history of either.

.

Throughout history, the division of gender roles was based on our different natures. Do you think nature made males and females the same? — Athena

No of course not, but male/female gender roles are not the same as leadership roles.
It seems like we have different ideas of what patriarchy and matriarchy mean. I take it to mean something like “when society is ruled or governed based on one gender”. I would call gender roles a sub category of society. If the society is modelled after one gender role or another then my criticism would be the same. Gender roles are not good metrics by which to build a society, rather they are components within a society.

When the giver of life was a goddess, women held the highest position and the society was organized by family order. Do you have any notion how this was different from patriarchal societies? Can you think of reasons for a matriarchy becoming a patriarchy? Do you understand I am not arguing one is better than the other but I am warning there are serious problems with insisting we all be like men and the homemaker is not an important social role? — Athena

Im not sure who you imagine would disagree with this. Not me.
Im saying it is foolish to insist a society “act like men”, where we disagree perhaps is that I also think it is foolish to insist society act like the homemaker as well. As others have mentioned, it is the “insisting” part that is problematic in the two “archy”’s.
If your going to insist, insist on people being responsible, productive members of society which isnt the purview of gender but rather the individuals within the society.

When the state becomes responsible for childcare, increasingly the paid childcare provider will have to prove merit by showing a degree in childcare education, and the pay will go up. This is a huge improvement over leaving a 12-year-old responsible for children. But no amount of technological education, and pay, will make the caregiver equal to a mother or grandmother. Can you think of any reason why this might become a social nightmare along the line of The Brave New World? — Athena

Again the relevance is lost on me. You’ll have to provide a better trail of logic for me to follow cuz Im not seeing the connecting tissue.

Like, is your main point “patriarchy bad”? Cuz yes, it is. So is a matriarchy. Men and women bring different tools, we should use all the tools at our disposal not one set or the other. Right?

How are both patriarchy and matriarchy flawed? If you can answer that, it would be the discussion I was hoping to have. — Athena

I would say because they are based off gender, and that is a poor metric by which to base societal structures upon. I don’t think one gender is better as leaders of society than another, the better structure will be determined by traits that do not rely on gender like education, integrity, fair and equal laws etc. I don’t think any of those traits rely on a specific answer.
Do you think one or the other (patriarchy or matriarchy) is better? I just din’t think I can agree. Male or female, politicians are all the same variety of lying, game playing scum we all hate.
Society is best run by a system where both genders get a seat at the table, where the “talent pool” of society running folks is at its widest. Why exclude someone based in gender?

Well, that is an interesting comment. Before you decide who is a fool you might want to have more information. But I am pondering what you said and wondering why you said it. It kind of reminds me of the movie Brave New World. The way technology has impacted our consciousness is fascinating, but that is a different discussion I would love to have. — Athena

I can be clearer that was muddled.
What I meant was the merits/demerits of a gender based society would match the merits/demerits of the genders themselves. I’m not making a commentary about what those gender merits/demerits are Im just pointing out the society would reflect them, whatever you think they might be.
The second point I intended to make was that gender is not a very good metric by which to appoint rulership or or who makes good leaders. I stand by what I said, that it is foolish to think a particular gender better equips one to lead or ideas by which to base society. Patriarchy and matriarchy are both flawed ways of structuring society.

I imagine benefits and problems of a gender based social structure would match pretty closely to the benefits and problems of the genders themselves.
Of course a problem common to both a patriarchy and a matriarchy is that it ignores merit in favour of an accident of birth. Anyone who thinks gender is more telling of leadership or social order than individual merit is a fool imo.

He fit the posting profile of the commonly banned folk, no surprise here.