This looks like it could be one thread I could really get my teeth into.

First off … I want to try and figure out what definitions and explanations you have of the term ‘myth’? By this I am asking for different possible uses of the term and any nuances you add to personalise this term.

My take is that each and every individual has a personal ‘mythos’ over which - and from which - we build up our representation of the world allowing us to navigate it. In another line of thought I view the use of ‘myth’ in teaching and education as fundamental to human development that has been somewhat overshadowed by the written form.

Anyway, will read this thread more carefully later and see if I can pick anything out that will help us engage more on this topic.

‘What’ not ‘Which’.

Not really. Child marriage was pretty much ‘traditional’ and this has been pretty much removed due to laws for ‘consenting adults’. If anything I can sooner imagine the required age for marriage being moved up rather than down. Either way it is just a number and I’m sure many marry when they are still emotionally immature and irresponsible. Polygamy is common enough already (albeit mostly beyond western cultures).

Stupid question. Flagged.

My thoughts are the same after reading the first few sentences.

and I guess laws protecting incest or child marriage would also be easy to make legal, so perhaps those would be next. — Paulm12

How are these even vaguely comparable to same sex marriages?

Try googling it maybe before putting your foot in your mouth.

Bye bye.

You are in my sin bin again. See you in 2 months maybe.

I actually did just check. I was correct.

I was stating fact not opinion. Scientifically speaking what I said was correct I dudn’t day it because it ‘makes sense’ it is just simply what experts in the field have stated.

These experts know more than you clearly. Too much genetic variation is too much. Too little is too little. There actually is an optimal range for procreation and this optimal range is regarded to be (by experts in the field) with breeding between 3rd and 4th cousins if I recall correctly.

You are using this alongside something posed as ‘Darwinian’ though - ie. Scientific. Optimal procreation is not simply about mating with someone more different than you are (note: the actual genetic differences within ‘races’ is far broader than between said ‘races’). The optimal last heard was to mate with your 3rd or 4th cousin I believe.

Quantifying such items has more or less use depending on the problem posed.

If a problem is viewed as entirely a quantifiable one then it is not really being viewed with any kind of ‘ethical’ tilt. This is something common to ethics where the individual will strive almost endlessly to reduce any problem to number in order to abstain from any sense of responsibility if the results of actions are unwelcome.

The societal norm is an ever present prison on any decision we make and it is an ever shfting prison. For this reason alone drawing any conclusion with certainty is somewhat foolish. The ‘moral’ here being the ‘best’ thing to do is be willing to except the fallout yet try to avoid as best you can to produce a fallout whilst simultaneously knowing soemm kind of ‘fallout’ is inevitable at some point in your life.

Anecdotal evidence is just that.

I simply relate this to Jungian Individuation.

This is (very bascially) broken down into four stages where the outward social projection is pretty much nullified - Persona - followed by exploring and accepting your inner ‘dark side’ - incorporating your Shadow - then coming to terms with the feminine/masculine opposite - anima/animus - which then leads the individual to a fuller sense of self by realising they are in fact multifaceted and more complex than they ever first imagined.

This is something akin to realising the ‘ego’ and not exactly kicking it out, but more or less realising the necessity of the ‘ego’ whilst not placing it on a pedestal.

The process of Individuation is likely to be traumatic and at the very least a large mental/‘spiritual’ feat to take on. For some it happens accidentally (like it did mostly for myself) but I guess it can happen through a pure wilful pursuit (although I cannot fathom how this would work).

Whatever … there is no philosophical question in the OP.

Entropy. And this is not exactly a ‘philosophical’ question.

In philosophical terms we ‘die’ because we are alive. Not dying = not living.

I don’t see much of an argument being presented nor a solid position. You do not believe that suffering is necessary for a full life? What is it to live a good life? Is a good life a life absent of suffering? Does ‘meaning’ make a life a full life or is meaning more or less a waste of time? How does meaning relate to knowledge in terms of suffering/woes in life?

I do not really think searching for ‘meaning’ in life is very ‘meaningful’ … I find the whole idea of searching for meaning to be ‘meaningless’ … maybe that is your point?

I do not see how being poor or rich has anything to do with meaning or suffering so some of your points in the OP are empty for me.

I think it is a perfectly reasonable evolutionary function to ‘search for meaning’ when things do not go our way. That is basically a damn fine survival mechanism that allows us to venture beyond our perceived limitations and learn about what is out there.

My point was that they are just words. ‘Suffering’ is no different to ‘meaning’ in the broader picture.

I have had a few discussions on here where some describe ‘suffering’ as being basically anything that requires effort.

Note: a ‘positive’ event can only be called such in relation to a ‘negative event’.

Words are just words. The ‘meaning’ (whatever that means!) is a referential tool for us to navigate around. For you perhaps the ‘meaning’ is to stop looking for ‘meaning’ … kind of self contradictory but most language is so … :D

Maybe if there was no suffering there would be no meaning? By this I mean that knowledge and understanding pretty much tie into some obstacle in life in one form or another.

Maybe meaning is suffering or suffering is just an alternative perspective for finding meaning. Generally in life I have found that suffering increases when meaning/understanding is avoided. The challenge of life should probably be met head-on as much as possible so as to find meaning and circumnavigate unnecessary suffering.

Note: ‘suffering’ seems to be ‘necessary’ for conscious and conscientious living creatures.

Here’s a question … Is ‘race’ a ‘social construct’? :D

I have noticed that people are so quick to say how others are easily offended, ridicule them and then hammer home the argument of people being offended when openly trying to offend them.

Humans are funny creatures.

Is your post here driven by morality. It seems to me that I agree with the gist of what you are saying but any public agreement is necessarily ‘immoral’ as it is tied up in the whole ‘morality’.

Morality is essentially immoral.

Note, every claim I have made is true — Bartricks

You are a moron. That is not ‘true’ it is my opinion. Do you understand the difference? I think not.

Bye bye. Not interested in any exchange with you for at least 3 months. You are officially in my sin bin.

Have fun :)

I can, and will, do better than you have :)

Currently busy arranging trip so it is not exactly the most important thing atm but WILL present an argument for antinatalism and go over several misconceptions on both sides that I have seen others repeat.

Either way:

- You validated what I said about the loose use of terms and I do not assume what is or is not meant by ‘harm’ (meaning if he meant ‘unnecessary harm’ then he should have said that AND been particular about what ‘unnecessary harm’ means).
- No red herring. He argued, quite clearly, that ‘innocent’ people do not deserve ‘harm’. If unborn/non-existent people are somehow different in terms of ‘innocence’ then that is something the OP needs to outline and differentiate between not me.
- I would say that life necessitates suffering and that suffering is necessary for any life-form in some capacity. That is what I would call ‘necessary suffering’ rather than throwing a blanket over all suffering as ‘unnecessary’. You yourself pointed out that there is ‘necessary’ and ‘unnecessary’ harm. If you are not entirely opposed to the idea of ‘necessary harm’ - which would be peculiar as if we call something ‘necessary’ then it seems fairly validated - then must surely admit that some ‘harm/suffering’ is actually beneficial.

In conclusion it seems that the ‘harms’ you berate are the ‘harms’ I see as strengthening peoples and individuals so they can live good lives.

The whole consent issue was not mentioned in the OP sadly. That is another area where there are huge misconceptions cast by both sides and all it takes is to listen and agree or disagree. No one consents to being born and no one (or rarely) consents to dying. I did not consent to gravity either … and it is right there in the hyperbole where the nuances of the argument begin to be lost. Gravity is not exactly a phenomenon of nature like birth is, but picking apart what is similar and different in these two phenomenons might help.

My view is basically formed around the use of hypotheticals and general dislike for ‘ethics’ (meaning something announced to the community as ‘good’ or ‘bad’). My dislike is due to the constant self manipulation we torture ourselves with due to peer pressures and general societal ‘norms’.

My argument for antinatalism (whenI complete it) is more or less going to be about how the argument can benefit us collectively and as individuals.

It would be interesting to see how you could write an argument against antinatalism. Will you attempt that?

You have two options.

1) Express yourself better so you do not constantly find yourself telling others they are ‘not addressing the OP’ when they have and found little to nothing of content.

2) Be constantly ignored and ridiculed due to the inability to react to how people respond to your posts where the blame is put 100% at their doorstep.

If someone reads what you wrote and replies to it then it might help to either point out the misunderstanding (without insulting them) and/or trying to express what you meant more precisely, or just try another approach.

I’m done with you for a month. Bye

:D

I literally just addressed every line of the OP you halfwit :D

Bye bye chump

In the meantime I can hopefully help a little by pointing out several issues raised about the OP.

1) “This is, I believe, a new argument for antinatalism.

To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent.”

- Having done nothing neither makes someone ‘innocent’ nor ‘guilty’. It is irrelevant.

2) “An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved.”

- You have failed to explain this. If your position is that an innocent person deserves no harm but that is what innocent means then you have no argument. You are just stating something and expecting people to follow.

Either way, it is faulty to paint things so black and white. In a scenario where two ‘innocent’ people’s interests conflict harm is inevitable so your definition does not hold up at all. Such inevitable harm comes about through ignorance/misunderstanding. You can still argue on some level that ‘neither deserve harm’ even though two innocent people have just caused harm to each other, but only if you accept that the judgement of what someone ‘deserves’ is a judgement made with an effort to ignore any blame due to ignorance.

3) “Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life.”

- Unsubstantiated claim.

4) “So, an innocent person deserves a happy, harm free life.”

- To repeat. Unsubstantiated claim.

5) “This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this.”

- We know this because life without any degree of ‘harm’ whatsoever is not ‘life’. Life requires learning and learning is always, at some stage, a hardship.

6) “It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay.”

- None of this follow as you are riding on too many unsubstantiated claims and poorly sketched out terms.

7) “Even if you can guarantee any innocent you create an overall happy life - and note that you can't guarantee this - it would still be wrong to create such a person, for the person deserves much more than that. They don't just deserve an overall happy life. They deserve an entirely harm-free happy life.”

- I might want to be able to fly like a bird or win the lottery. A ‘harm free’ life would not be a ‘life’ at all. This seems to be a rather naive view. It is a bit like expecting a child raised where their every action is praised blindly and expecting a well rounded individual to emerge from such a methodology of raising children. Many parents have attempted to ‘protect’ their children too much and with pretty horrific outcomes. The very same idea of ‘no harm whatsoever’ (regardless of deserving said harms) inflicted upon someone would result in early death due to said person being incapable of looking after themselves. I do not view a ‘happy life’ as a life under the perpetual guardianship of a tyrant whose sole purpose is to shield said ‘innocent’ from every single possible harm.

There is also the embedded problem of putting an ‘innocent’ on a pedestal. An ‘innocent’ person is also a person with no experience, knowledge, reason nor any real understanding of morality. Be careful if your purpose is to prolong such a state of ‘innocence’.

Anyway, I will provide a proper argument for antinatalism and I suggest you provide a proper one against it.

Argue with yourself. Meaning do what I suggest. Make an argument AGAINST antinatalism and see if you can help yourself understand the opposing views given and address them properly.

He was overly sensitive, quick to insult and never showed any attempt to use even a slight degree of charity in any interpretation. Once cast in the role of ‘enemy’ he lost all sense of reasoning.

If he was more thick-skinned it might have played out differently. Maybe after several months of therapy he will learn or maybe not. Either way good riddance!

How can I find ‘karma’ abhorrent’? I said those espousing ‘karma’ as a justification for people less fortunate as themselves as ‘abhorrent’.

It is especially silly when based on a steadfast belief in reincarnation from one body to another.

Where is having the cake and eating it? I don’t quite understand what you are getting at with that line?

I don’t completely agree there, but in general I would certainly agree that in its current guise it is probably no more harmful than Christianity (although several orphanages would probably prove otherwise?).

I was interested in this topic because the philosophical position of ‘karma’ and ‘past lives’ is something that is often swept under the carpet. I think viewing misfortune in this life as some kind of penance for misgiving in some imagined previous life is an abhorrent idea that essentially has some people categorised as ‘deserving their fate’ by simply being born with some form of disability or other.

Several years overdue. He needs therapy more than any other person I have seen on this or any other forum.

Hope he works through whatever his issues are.

I am just surprised he wasn’t done away with years ago tbh. Being knowledgeable is no excuse for open and untamed bigotry and bullying directed towards anyone who happens to share a different opinion.

Are you really that naive? That is like saying violence is not permitted in Christianity and ‘turn the other cheek’ is always employed.

Myanmar. Plenty of instances of violence there openly encouraged by buddhist monks.

Go back several decades and in the UK muslims would pretty much never get involved in violence. The doctrines don’t matter too much when corrupt leaders of institutions wish to flex for political gain. Religious institutions are political institutions.

Merely a matter of geography. Buddhist doctrines can just as easily be used to kill and maim. Extremists can exist in any institution.

The general message in every religion is one of peace and love. Some seem to need more reforming than others … not denying that. A bullet to the head is still a bullet to the head. The gun it comes from generally doesn’t matter too much.

True. It is an argument that every human action is potentially harmful and therefore no action should be taken.

The point being if you follow through the thought it is both impractical and ridiculous.

Procreating can cause increased harm as can walking down a road, breathing too loudly, sniffing a flower or not killing someone in a murderous rampage.

There is something a little clandestine in the thought that innocents deserve no harm because this kind of implies that the guilty deserve harm. Then it is a question of who decides who is or is not guilty. From a stance of newly born children then we can view them not as purely innocent creatures but more or less as vessels for future harm riddled with guilt on the immediate horizon.

Anyway, I will continue to work on my argument for antinatalism I suggest you work on an argument against it.

Karma is simply an extension of known laws of ethics: what goes around comes around, one good turn deserves another, a taste of one's own medicine, you reap what you sow, you get the idea, tit for tat, quid pro quo, a law encapulated in the word "reciprocity". — Agent Smith

Well, if only! The buddhist view is basically that children with bone cancer have bone cancer due to what they did in a previous life. Them having cancer is ‘karma’.

There is a much darker side to buddhist beliefs many prefer to ignore.

You presented a one-dimensional position with no attempt to offer up any other explanations for the existence of ‘religions’.

Your entire argument starts on the assumption that people started religions for purely selffish/nefarious means. That could be true of course, but I see no attempt made to consider any other possibility. Hence, you are arguing/asking from a position of clear bias.

It was nice to see Corbyn actually give another genuine option for the voters. No denying that.

I came to the same basic conclusion. Many questions are still unanswered/unknown but it certainly a position that contends strongly with any other when it comes to the ‘origins of religion’.

I do think there is something to basic human greed and fallacies that have led to ‘opiate of the masses’ and other such views. I do not see these positons as the instigators though. Shamanism, and shamanic traditions, are imbued across all religions yet shamanism is not a ‘religion’.

Altered states of consciousness seem to be where the whole landscape of ‘religion’ stem from. Nothing supernatural but certainly something deeply obscured.

Poor and symplistic analysis based on biases you carry.

There is no Ad Hom. I am quite capable of calling someone a complete cunt and yet taking their argument as an argument detached from said cunt.