Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

Anti-natalism

68 replies to this topic
sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#31

Posted 01 January 2018 - 04:48 PM

That premise goes both ways.


Not really. We actually do things like survey happiness and subjective well-being . So it's entirely possible to look statistically at happiness and form empirically driven views on whether or not individual perception of the overall balance of happiness and wellbeing in individual lives correlates with the mean.

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#32

Posted 01 January 2018 - 05:04 PM

 

That premise goes both ways.


Not really. We actually do things like survey happiness and subjective well-being . So it's entirely possible to look statistically at happiness and form empirically driven views on whether or not individual perception of the overall balance of happiness and wellbeing in individual lives correlates with the mean.

 

That's nearly the same as saying: "Since 40 people are happy and 13 are sad my particular child will certainly be happy and thus I should have him/her".

 

And that's not even debating the particulars of the actual statistics.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#33

Posted 01 January 2018 - 06:07 PM

That's nearly the same as saying: "Since 40 people are happy and 13 are sad my particular child will certainly be happy and thus I should have him/her".


It's literally nothing like that; nothing at all. What I've taken issue with is the false extrapolation of a single individual's personal perception to the balance of happiness and misery in society in general when all available evidence on the subject is entirely contrary to that perception. The question of the accuracy and validity of that self-reported evidence is open to discussion but the concrete assertions about the suffering in "most people's" lives (his words, not mine) don't really ring true.

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#34

Posted 01 January 2018 - 06:34 PM

 

That's nearly the same as saying: "Since 40 people are happy and 13 are sad my particular child will certainly be happy and thus I should have him/her".


It's literally nothing like that; nothing at all. What I've taken issue with is the false extrapolation of a single individual's personal perception to the balance of happiness and misery in society in general when all available evidence on the subject is entirely contrary to that perception. The question of the accuracy and validity of that self-reported evidence is open to discussion but the concrete assertions about the suffering in "most people's" lives (his words, not mine) don't really ring true.

 

It's certainly like that.
 
It's taking the results of questionable surveys to justify imposing something on another organism.
 
It's just another excuse to gamble with someone's life by giving them life.
 
Most people live in a bubble.  Especially "First Worlders".  You do realize all your conveniences and comforts come at others' expense?

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#35

Posted 01 January 2018 - 07:02 PM

It's taking the results of questionable surveys to justify imposing something on another organism.

If you're going to bother responding, you might as well actually respond to the comments I've made rather than a straw man only vaguely related to my points.

Critiquing cognitive bias and questioning whether someone is creating a false consensus by inaccurately prescribing their own worldview on others "imposes" absolutely nothing on anybody.

Go back and read the initial posts.

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#36

Posted 01 January 2018 - 07:21 PM Edited by j peril, 01 January 2018 - 07:37 PM.

Critiquing cognitive bias and questioning whether someone is creating a false consensus by inaccurately prescribing their own worldview on others "imposes" absolutely nothing on anybody.

 

 

It certainly does when applied to the subject matter at hand.

 

Edit:

 

Ignoring or dismissing unfavorable views of life tends to compel others to view childbirth as a positive thing.  Often the more positive something is viewed the more people tend to do it.  It follows that more children would probably be born, which creates a greater opportunity for unfavorable views or unhappy children.
 
In other words, there is a meat grinder in the corner of the room.  You and people like you have covered the meat grinder with a blanket.  But every three days someone has to hop into the meat grinder.  Because of you guys the others are convinced the meat grinder doesn't exist.  They have more and more children.  That means more and more meat for the grinder, which surprisingly does exist.

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#37

Posted 01 January 2018 - 08:28 PM

It certainly does when applied to the subject matter at hand.

You either still don't understand my comments, or the subject at hand, or both.
 

Ignoring or dismissing unfavorable views of life tends to compel others to view childbirth as a positive thing.

It's not a dismissal of an unfavourable view. Dealux is entitled to express views on the balance of misery and happiness in his own life but trying to extrapolate this as applicable to humanity more widely, contradicting- let's be honest, far more compelling- evidence requires at the very least a coherent justification; something entirely lacking. No single subjective experience expressed by a lone individual can possibly be nuanced or expansive enough to represent even a moderately sized societal group, never mind a whole sentient species.

You shouldn't confuse a critique of cognitive bias for an argument in support of the inverse view. And that's before we get onto the issues of looking at reproduction from the perspective of philosophical outcome rather than the biological factors that primarily drive it.
  • Tchuck likes this

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#38

Posted 01 January 2018 - 09:06 PM

You shouldn't confuse a critique of cognitive bias for an argument in support of the inverse view. And that's before we get onto the issues of looking at reproduction from the perspective of philosophical outcome rather than the biological factors that primarily drive it.

 

Your personal view is irrelevant.  The simple fact of implying "most people seem to be happy", the simple fact of disseminating this type of idea has the ability to directly impact decision-making concerning childbirth.


j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#39

Posted 01 January 2018 - 09:29 PM Edited by j peril, 01 January 2018 - 09:31 PM.

Going back to your original statement:

 

I think you're probably transposing your own life views and experiences onto others here. I do find the whole regression to the mean on negative utilitarianism interesting as a thought experiment, but the idea that everyone's life is generally composed more of suffering than happiness is nonsense IMO.


I can only speak for my personal experiences, but I enjoy the vast majority of my life experiences. My job is fascinating, my home life is awesome, and although both are the sources of stress or boredom from time to time that's vastly outweighed by both the quality and quantity of positive experiences.

 

 

Here you basically commit the same projection you accuse Dealux of.
 
Additionally I would argue that the baseline of life is misery.  Or at least deprivation.
 
From the moment you are born you are crying.  You are miserable.  You must first be miserable, you must first be deprived, e.g. thirsty or hungry, to feel relief.  So from that perspective I would argue that misery, or deprivation, is more prevalent than happiness as deprivation or misery is essentially the baseline of the life experience.

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#40

Posted 01 January 2018 - 09:55 PM

Not really. We actually do things like survey happiness and subjective well-being . So it's entirely possible to look statistically at happiness and form empirically driven views on whether or not individual perception of the overall balance of happiness and wellbeing in individual lives correlates with the mean.

I don't know whether I'm getting this right, but is your claim that we can answer the question 'is life good' on the basis of happiness surveys? I think that's a very problematic claim. It's dubious that self reporting is accurate enough for such claims. It's not meaningless either, but for answering large philosophical question, self report surveys don't bring you very far.

 

 

 

Except that all the evidence points to the fact that life has no end goal or purpose.

You or no one else really believes that though. That's an intellectual position that every practical act you've done undermines. Through your behaviour you prove that you understand the world in terms of meaning. Actually, generally in your posts you consistently provide value judgements as well. Human beings have an innate tendency to perceive the world in terms of value. You could say human beings are innately religious beings. That human beings have an innate tendency to be religious also becomes clear in this time of increased secularization and polarization, where people look for new sacred values in the realm of politics. If you analyze political movements you'll quickly discover they have their own sacred values.

 

The goal is to survive.  Survive to survive.  Suicide isn't easy.  There exists an inherent biological mechanism which pushes us forward despite tremendous amounts of pain and tension.  That's just another one of the stupid features of life.  It's basically geared to endure lots of pain and misery and continue on enduring it.  Not only endure it but create all new units to endure more of it and in different ways.  One way it endures said pain and misery is by constructing elaborate stages of distraction to distract from the misery, such as the highly-acclaimed Grand Theft Auto series and all related gaming material.  Ironically this very game details the glaring pain, conflict and suffering prevalent throughout all levels of society.
 
As stated previously in this thread life has no "end goal" other than death.  There is no "purpose" and as such we must create "purposes" ourselves.  For most the "purpose" seems to be minimizing misery.  But that will always be sought, never attained.  If misery and pain are eliminated, they will ultimately be forgotten.  And to not know pain or hardship is to not know comfort or success.
 
Life, reproduction, is essentially just things caught up in a cycle, like Earth spinning around the sun.  It's just a thing stuck in repetition.  The only objective point seems to be "continue to continue".  Personally I'm not.

You're missing the point really. I'm sure that when you act in the world in your daily life the paradigm you use to understand the world and others isn't one of biological determinism. You don't value the world on the basis of a scientific paradigm. When a bomb gets dropped on your house, you don't turn to science to ask whether this act was wrong. You can defend scientific nihilism intellectually, but you don't practice it as a moral framework. Because morally it is void. And you act as a moral creature, or else you'd be in jail, a severe social outcast, or severally mentally ill.

On the point of an 'end goal', you're just repeating what has been said, without engaging with my response.

You're free to maintain an intellectual position of scientific nihilism, but really all it will do is make you miserable.


j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#41

Posted 01 January 2018 - 09:56 PM

In stead of talking about stopping with bringing new life into the world, we should be considering how we can continue making life meaningful in the future.... ...

 

 

 

And this is what life is.  A constant struggle.  Not necessarily a constant struggle for survival, or a constant struggle to minimize misery (which it usually is), but just a struggle.  A struggle to continue.  A struggle for meaning.  A struggle for struggle.  Nonsense.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#42

Posted 01 January 2018 - 09:56 PM

The simple fact of implying "most people seem to be happy"

Except I never actually did this. At no point have I ever made a statement to this end, nor any statement that could reasonably interpreted in such a way.

I can only presume you've misread the line "the idea that everyone's life is generally composed more of suffering than happiness is nonsense" as inference that most people's lives are comprised more of happiness than suffering. In reality u mean exactly what I say- that the assertion that "all human life is composed primarily if suffering" is without demonstrable merit.

Here you basically commit the same projection you accuse Dealux of.

I don't commit any hypocrisy at all. I speak scornfully of the assertion that all human life is primarily suffering, and speak entirely from personal and subjective experience when I say that my own experiences do not reflect this. At no point do I attempt to transpose these experiences onto other people, or infer that i am representative of others; I simply use my experiences as a rebuttal for the assertion that life, generally, is primarily misery.

So, would you kindly point out the hypocrisy in that?
 

From the moment you are born you are crying.  You are miserable. 

The mistake you make here is confusing biological actions designed to provoke a hard-wired reaction with sentient, self-aware displays of emotion.

An infant that is not self-aware (IE one before the ages of roughly six to eight even months) cannot realistically be argued to express emotion. They respond to physical stimulus but are incapable of rationalisation. Asserting that crying is an expression of misery is highly questionable; crying serves a biological purpose in that it alerts the parent to the needs of the child. This is fundamentally no different in humans than anywhere else in the animal kingdom.

you must first be deprived, e.g. thirsty or hungry, to feel relief.

Again, you confuse biological stimuli with emotional reactions. Feeling hungry or thirsty is first and foremost a biological reaction. Non-sentient animals feel hungry and thirsty, because those feelings are as a result of balances of hormones in the brain. Removing the hypothalamus of a rat will cause it to gorge itself to death.

Perhaps you could provide a coherent, reasoned explanation to why you see equivalence between hunger and misery. Is it logically impossible to be both hungry and happy?

I don't know whether I'm getting this right

You're not- my point was that the mere fact people subjectively identify their lives as happy when surveyed in these projects precludes life from being predominantly misery- at least in the subsets of society that are surveyed.

The only metric we have for happiness is self reported because happiness is subjective. Which is precisely why asserting that life in general was primarily composed of misery was so ridiculous.
  • Tchuck likes this

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#43

Posted 01 January 2018 - 10:06 PM

 

Not really. We actually do things like survey happiness and subjective well-being . So it's entirely possible to look statistically at happiness and form empirically driven views on whether or not individual perception of the overall balance of happiness and wellbeing in individual lives correlates with the mean.

I don't know whether I'm getting this right, but is your claim that we can answer the question 'is life good' on the basis of happiness surveys? I think that's a very problematic claim. It's dubious that self reporting is accurate enough for such claims. It's not meaningless either, but for answering large philosophical question, self report surveys don't bring you very far.

 

 

 

Except that all the evidence points to the fact that life has no end goal or purpose.

You or no one else really believes that though. That's an intellectual position that every practical act you've done undermines. Through your behaviour you prove that you understand the world in terms of meaning. Actually, generally in your posts you consistently provide value judgements as well. Human beings have an innate tendency to perceive the world in terms of value. You could say human beings are innately religious beings. That human beings have an innate tendency to be religious also becomes clear in this time of increased secularization and polarization, where people look for new sacred values in the realm of politics. If you analyze political movements you'll quickly discover they have their own sacred values.

 

The goal is to survive.  Survive to survive.  Suicide isn't easy.  There exists an inherent biological mechanism which pushes us forward despite tremendous amounts of pain and tension.  That's just another one of the stupid features of life.  It's basically geared to endure lots of pain and misery and continue on enduring it.  Not only endure it but create all new units to endure more of it and in different ways.  One way it endures said pain and misery is by constructing elaborate stages of distraction to distract from the misery, such as the highly-acclaimed Grand Theft Auto series and all related gaming material.  Ironically this very game details the glaring pain, conflict and suffering prevalent throughout all levels of society.
 
As stated previously in this thread life has no "end goal" other than death.  There is no "purpose" and as such we must create "purposes" ourselves.  For most the "purpose" seems to be minimizing misery.  But that will always be sought, never attained.  If misery and pain are eliminated, they will ultimately be forgotten.  And to not know pain or hardship is to not know comfort or success.
 
Life, reproduction, is essentially just things caught up in a cycle, like Earth spinning around the sun.  It's just a thing stuck in repetition.  The only objective point seems to be "continue to continue".  Personally I'm not.

You're missing the point really. I'm sure that when you act in the world in your daily life the paradigm you use to understand the world and others isn't one of biological determinism. You don't value the world on the basis of a scientific paradigm. When a bomb gets dropped on your house, you don't turn to science to ask whether this act was wrong. You can defend scientific nihilism intellectually, but you don't practice it as a moral framework. Because morally it is void. And you act as a moral creature, or else you'd be in jail, a severe social outcast, or severally mentally ill.

Check all three.

 

But I do not claim to be a scientific nihilist. 


j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#44

Posted 01 January 2018 - 10:22 PM Edited by j peril, 01 January 2018 - 10:43 PM.

 

The simple fact of implying "most people seem to be happy"

Except I never actually did this. At no point have I ever made a statement to this end, nor any statement that could reasonably interpreted in such a way.

I can only presume you've misread the line "the idea that everyone's life is generally composed more of suffering than happiness is nonsense" as inference that most people's lives are comprised more of happiness than suffering. In reality u mean exactly what I say- that the assertion that "all human life is composed primarily if suffering" is without demonstrable merit.

 


I was referencing your happiness and well-being surveys linked above.
 

 

From the moment you are born you are crying.  You are miserable.

The mistake you make here is confusing biological actions designed to provoke a hard-wired reaction with sentient, self-aware displays of emotion.

An infant that is not self-aware (IE one before the ages of roughly six to eight even months) cannot realistically be argued to express emotion. They respond to physical stimulus but are incapable of rationalisation. Asserting that crying is an expression of misery is highly questionable; crying serves a biological purpose in that it alerts the parent to the needs of the child. This is fundamentally no different in humans than anywhere else in the animal kingdom.

 


Perhaps the better term there would be "deprived" and not miserable, as mentioned in the following sentence.

A newborn baby usually cries because it is hungry or thirsty. That is a form of deprivation. I would, at least personally, consider deprivation as a form of misery.

Furthermore pain is sensation, not emotion.

 

 

you must first be deprived, e.g. thirsty or hungry, to feel relief.

Again, you confuse biological stimuli with emotional reactions. Feeling hungry or thirsty is first and foremost a biological reaction. Non-sentient animals feel hungry and thirsty, because those feelings are as a result of balances of hormones in the brain. Removing the hypothalamus of a rat will cause it to gorge itself to death.

Perhaps you could provide a coherent, reasoned explanation to why you see equivalence between hunger and misery.

 


See above.
 

Is it logically impossible to be both hungry and happy?

Impossible for any significant amount of time.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#45

Posted 01 January 2018 - 10:45 PM

I was referencing your happiness and well-being surveys linked above.

That's not an explanation. If you're going to start throwing around accusations of hypocrisy, you'd better be wiling to back them up. So let's try again- exactly what about my comment was hypocritical? Cite and explain.

Perhaps the better term there would be "deprived"

Deprivation is the active, intentional denying of something necessary to someone. You could certainly make the argument that some hunger, thirst etc was a product of deprivation, but I think you'd struggle to argue all of it was. I'm a bit hungry right now, but I'm not going to eat because it's nearly 11PM and I know I've eaten a sufficient amount today. I don't think any rational individual could argue that's "deprivation".

A newborn baby usually cries because it is hungry or thirsty. That is a form of deprivation.

This is a non sequitur, because hunger or thirst and deprivation are not analogous. Crying is a biological reaction to obtain something a newborn infant cannot obtain on its own- hence, analogous with the animal kingdom and difficult to argue to be a form of deprivation. Whom is actively depriving the child?

Furthermore pain is sensation, not emotion.

Technically, so are hunger and thirst. I also don't recall ever stating pain was emotion.

Not for a very long time.

Now you're trying to move the goalposts. Either hunger is intrinsically deprivation and therefore all forms of hunger without any precondition or qualification are misery, or hunger can in some circumstances contribute to misery but is not in and of itself. By attaching preconditions, the first becomes logically untenable.

You cannot believe hunger is misery and yet accept that you can be concurrently hungry and happy; the two are mutually exclusive.
  • Tchuck likes this

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#46

Posted 01 January 2018 - 11:02 PM Edited by j peril, 01 January 2018 - 11:17 PM.

 

Perhaps the better term there would be "deprived"

Deprivation is the active, intentional denying of something necessary to someone. You could certainly make the argument that some hunger, thirst etc was a product of deprivation, but I think you'd struggle to argue all of it was. I'm a bit hungry right now, but I'm not going to eat because it's nearly 11PM and I know I've eaten a sufficient amount today. I don't think any rational individual could argue that's "deprivation".

 

Deprived can simply mean "lacking" or "deficient". As in "lacking food".
 

 

A newborn baby usually cries because it is hungry or thirsty. That is a form of deprivation.

This is a non sequitur, because hunger or thirst and deprivation are not analogous. Crying is a biological reaction to obtain something a newborn infant cannot obtain on its own- hence, analogous with the animal kingdom and difficult to argue to be a form of deprivation. Whom is actively depriving the child?

 

Babies cry because they are hungry. Hunger is a type of pain, a type of sensation. Again, deprived can simply mean "lacking", not just having something withheld.


 

Now you're trying to move the goalposts. Either hunger is intrinsically deprivation and therefore all forms of hunger without any precondition or qualification are misery, or hunger can in some circumstances contribute to misery but is not in and of itself. By attaching preconditions, the first becomes logically untenable.

You cannot believe hunger is misery and yet accept that you can be concurrently hungry and happy; the two are mutually exclusive.

Hunger is pain, a physical sensation.  Happiness is a mental illusion.


Chiari
  • Chiari

    Russian Bump Stocks Can't Melt Steel Beams

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#47

Posted 01 January 2018 - 11:16 PM

^ Not really. Pain should not exist in a normal cycle of sensations. Hunger should. It's why substance P is released in response to stimuli whereas ghrelin is produced continuously.

More broadly though, as part of the happiness bit, I think it needs to be considered that emotions are endogenously regulated, which means that you can control how happy or sad you are. Even people who are clinically depressed have a degree of control in their emotions.

I giggled a bit at the 'newborns crying from the moment they're born due to misery/deprivation'. That is a physiological response to the extreme, rapid adjustment from intrauterine to extrauterine life. Without boring you, this is related lungs expanding and adapting to being filled with air for the first time. A newborn who isn't crying right after birth usually has a low APGAR, which is an emergency. As sivis said, crying, throughout infancy, is just a form of communication since all language/motor skills are undeveloped at this point.
  • Tchuck, sivispacem and Triple Vacuum Seal like this

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#48

Posted 01 January 2018 - 11:21 PM

Deprived can simply mean "lacking" or "deficient". As in "lacking food".

I don't agree that "lacking" or "deficient" are synonymous with "deprived". They have very different connotations.

Hunger is a type of pain, a type of sensation.

No it isn't. Hunger is a sensation, yes, like pain, but the mechanics of the sensation are entirely different. The two are not the same and to pretend they are is scientifically indefensible.

It's all relative.

The same can be said of just about any discussion of positive and negative emotions, which is why sweeping generalisations of the balance of happiness versus suffering across humanity are entirely meaningless and worthless. All the expose is the psychological foibles of the person making the assertion.

One could be hungry and happy for a temporary amount of time, but not for a prolonged amount of time.

So hunger isn't actually misery, then? Glad we cleared that up.

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#49

Posted 01 January 2018 - 11:26 PM

^ Not really. Pain should not exist in a normal cycle of sensations. Hunger should. It's why substance P is released in response to stimuli whereas ghrelin is produced continuously.

More broadly though, as part of the happiness bit, I think it needs to be considered that emotions are endogenously regulated, which means that you can control how happy or sad you are. Even people who are clinically depressed have a degree of control in their emotions.

I giggled a bit at the 'newborns crying from the moment they're born due to misery/deprivation'. That is a physiological response to the extreme, rapid adjustment from intrauterine to extrauterine life. Without boring you, this is related lungs expanding and adapting to being filled with air for the first time. A newborn who isn't crying right after birth usually has a low APGAR, which is an emergency. As sivis said, crying, throughout infancy, is just a form of communication since all language/motor skills are undeveloped at this point.

Right.  It still goes along with my assertion that babies are miserable from the moment they are born.  They are breathing in the dirty, polluted air and dealing with a harsh environment.

 

The fact still remains that newborn babies usually cry because they are hungry, because they are lacking something.

 

I take it you have much experience with the newborn gremlins.


Deprived can simply mean "lacking" or "deficient". As in "lacking food".
[/quote]
I don't agree that "lacking" or "deficient" are synonymous with "deprived". They have very different connotations.
[/quote]
Argue that with Collins English dictionary and Random House.

One could be hungry and happy for a temporary amount of time, but not for a prolonged amount of time.
[/quote]
So hunger isn't actually misery, then? Glad we cleared that up.
[/quote]
I'm intoxicated. Read my edited response.


Chiari
  • Chiari

    Russian Bump Stocks Can't Melt Steel Beams

  • Members
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2014
  • United-States

#50

Posted 01 January 2018 - 11:32 PM

Don't drunk post in a serious topic.
  • El Diablo and Tchuck like this

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#51

Posted 01 January 2018 - 11:37 PM

 

Deprived can simply mean "lacking" or "deficient". As in "lacking food".

I don't agree that "lacking" or "deficient" are synonymous with "deprived". They have very different connotations.

 


Argue that with Collins English dictionary and Random House.

 

 

Hunger is a type of pain, a type of sensation.

No it isn't. Hunger is a sensation, yes, like pain, but the mechanics of the sensation are entirely different. The two are not the same and to pretend they are is scientifically indefensible.

 

Mechanics may vary, the results are essentially the same.
 

 

One could be hungry and happy for a temporary amount of time, but not for a prolonged amount of time.

So hunger isn't actually misery, then? Glad we cleared that up.

 

I'm intoxicated. Read the updated response.


Don't drunk post in a serious topic.

Don't have kids in a much more serious world. 


El Diablo
  • El Diablo

    "The Devil" ™

  • BUSTED!
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars
  • April Fools Loser 2015

#52

Posted 01 January 2018 - 11:53 PM

this topic is getting out of hand.

I'm going back.

 

1) The point is, who knows what a hypothetical child may think of existence or human society?
2) Accordingly, who is one to make the decision to go ahead with creating one to find out?

1) this point is basically irrelevant.

the fact that one's existence may be imperfect doesn't otherwise warrant the cessation of life or procreation. the fact that society could still use improvements doesn't mean we should give up when the going gets tough. we can't base such grand and important schemes on such a hypothetical.

 

2) we are.

we're alive and we're here now. we get to make that decision. we can't ask the opinion of a fetus that doesn't exist so it's irrelevant. arguably the most significant societal improvements we have gained are the product of our ability to reproduce. good parents, well-meaning citizens, and enterprising human beings only want the best for their families and continually want their children to experience a better quality of life than they had themselves. the greatest victories for human and civil rights have been achieved by individuals who were fighting for a future, with the knowledge that many them would not personally enjoy the fruits of these labors in the present, and may even die for them before being realized.

 

we are alive.

we get to make these choices.

 

Life, reproduction, is essentially just things caught up in a cycle, like Earth spinning around the sun.  It's just a thing stuck in repetition.  The only objective point seems to be "continue to continue".  Personally I'm not.

if that is how you personally feel then so be it.

we can debate the ethics but I'm not sure why we need to argue personal liberty. you've clearly made your point.

 

did you only join GTAForums 7 hours ago to post in this topic?

whose alternate account is this... :breadfish:

  • Tchuck, Eutyphro and Triple Vacuum Seal like this

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#53

Posted 02 January 2018 - 12:05 AM Edited by j peril, 02 January 2018 - 12:06 AM.

this topic is getting out of hand.
I'm going back.
 

1) The point is, who knows what a hypothetical child may think of existence or human society?
2) Accordingly, who is one to make the decision to go ahead with creating one to find out?

1) this point is basically irrelevant.
the fact that one's existence may be imperfect doesn't otherwise warrant the cessation of life or procreation. the fact that society could still use improvements doesn't mean we should give up when the going gets tough. we can't base such grand and important schemes on such a hypothetical.
 
2) we are.
we're alive and we're here now. we get to make that decision. we can't ask the opinion of a fetus that doesn't exist so it's irrelevant. arguably the most significant societal improvements we have gained are the product of our ability to reproduce. good parents, well-meaning citizens, and enterprising human beings only want the best for their families and continually want their children to experience a better quality of life than they had themselves. the greatest victories for human and civil rights have been achieved by individuals who were fighting for a future, with the knowledge that many them would not personally enjoy the fruits of these labors in the present, and may even die for them before being realized.
 
we are alive.
we get to make these choices.

 

This is the crux of the argument.  The fetus' -- the upcoming individual's opinion -- is irrelevant.

You're basically saying "we should have kids because we can" and "because we are improving things". But that is your opinion. That is what you think. You don't know how your children will feel. And even if they hated life would they even admit it?

This is the issue at hand. No one cares if the individuals of the future hate what is.  And even if some of them do, so what. We are advancing! We are continuing to continue! f*ck what the others think!

It's an asshole position. "We will continue because we think we should!" But then again, nature is an asshole factory as they say: https://www.youtube....h?v=TGjTHtPn_No


Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#54

Posted 02 January 2018 - 12:26 AM Edited by Eutyphro, 02 January 2018 - 12:26 AM.

You're like a bull in a china shop. There's no point debating a delicate philosophical question with a sh*tposting numbnut.

  • j peril likes this

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#55

Posted 02 January 2018 - 01:13 AM

You're like a bull in a china shop. There's no point debating a delicate philosophical question with a sh*tposting numbnut.

Seems the topic may be more fragile than the children themselves!

 

Poetic justice at its finest. 

  • krypt0s likes this

Eutyphro
  • Eutyphro

    ヾ(⌐■_■)ノ♪

  • Members
  • Joined: 07 Aug 2005
  • Botswana

#56

Posted 02 January 2018 - 01:55 AM

You really fail to engage with argumentation. It's as simple as that. I'm not sure whether it is because you are unintelligent or disingenuous. Because of the last post you made I'm quite sure of the disingenuous part.


sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#57

Posted 02 January 2018 - 09:27 AM

Argue that with Collins English dictionary and Random House.

Taken verbatim from the Collins English Dictionary:

deprive
(dɪpraɪv)

Word forms: deprives, depriving, deprived
verb


If you deprive someone of something that they want or need, you take it away from them, or you prevent them from having it.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union deprived western intelligence agencies of their main enemies. [V n of n]
They've been deprived of the fuel necessary to heat their homes. [VERB noun + of]

Synonyms: dispossess, rob, strip, divest

Mechanics may vary, the results are essentially the same.

How? As far as I can see you've now reached a point where the only thing holding your argument together is the unfounded assertion that hunger and pain are the same thing. The onus is on you to support this assertion, but so far all you seem to do is repeat it ad nauseum. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to do a lot better.

I see you've also conveniently decided to ignore the request for clarity in exactly how I was hypocritical. Can I assume that this, too, is a manifestation of your crippling incompetence in this discussion. Perhaps try again when you're sober and coherent, because drunk you is frankly a crap debater.

I'm intoxicated. Read the updated response.

The updated response adds quite literally nothing of value or merit. In fact it addresses the question even less than the response you'd originally penned.

I strongly advise you to come back when you're sober and less likely to make a total arse of yourself.
  • Tchuck likes this

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#58

Posted 02 January 2018 - 03:09 PM Edited by j peril, 02 January 2018 - 03:12 PM.

Life is a death sentence.  It's a life sentence, too.  The vast majority of people are stuck in tedious jobs.  All people are stuck dealing with this lifelong string of maintenance.  By having a child the parents are setting that individual up for imminent disaster.  Besides that the child may be born with a defect.  The child may have poor vision or hearing.  Who cares!  And if they don't like death or the thought of it, tough!  Apparently it's okay that life, and in turn death, has been inflicted, apparently it's okay that children are disposable.
 
Parents are flinging these children into chaotic competition, they are tossing these children into a sea of sharks and piranhas with sharp teeth and insatiable appetites.  Humans are competing against each other for social status and resources, humans wage wars against each other for these things, and the parents think it's wonderful to toss more kids into it.  What they are really doing is tossing more kids into the meat grinder.  Life is a process of slow deterioration.  Like quickly running up the stairs and then tumbling down in slow motion.
 
These parents are essentially sentencing children to death and in the meantime subjecting them to all sorts of stress and conflict, with no concern for their irrelevant experiences or irrelevant opinions.  It's just an inconsiderate, and costly -- very costly -- decision.  After all, people's lives are at stake.
 
Edit:
 
Combine that with the fact that life has no real "purpose" or "end goal", that we're just continuing to continue because we're stuck in a rut, and it's obvious it's quite a raw deal.

j peril
  • j peril

    Player Hater

  • Members
  • Joined: 01 Jan 2018
  • Olympics

#59

Posted 02 January 2018 - 05:04 PM

 

Argue that with Collins English dictionary and Random House.

Taken verbatim from the Collins English Dictionary:

deprive
(dɪpraɪv)

Word forms: deprives, depriving, deprived
verb


If you deprive someone of something that they want or need, you take it away from them, or you prevent them from having it.

The disintegration of the Soviet Union deprived western intelligence agencies of their main enemies. [V n of n]
They've been deprived of the fuel necessary to heat their homes. [VERB noun + of]

Synonyms: dispossess, rob, strip, divest

 

 
Yeah, I used the term "deprived", as in the adjective, not "deprive" as in the verb.
 
From Collins English:
 
deprived (dɪˈpraɪvd)
adj
(Social Welfare) lacking adequate food, shelter, education, etc
http://thefreedictionary.com/deprived
 
That slip helps reveal your crafty debate tactics.
 

 

Mechanics may vary, the results are essentially the same.

How? As far as I can see you've now reached a point where the only thing holding your argument together is the unfounded assertion that hunger and pain are the same thing. The onus is on you to support this assertion, but so far all you seem to do is repeat it ad nauseum. If you want to be taken seriously, you're going to have to do a lot better.

 

 

The basic point is parents are creating needs when needs themselves were never needed.
 
Hunger is the result of a need, a result of lacking.  Hunger can be viewed as pain.  When hunger really sets in the body begins digesting itself.  Is that not a discomforting situation?  By asserting "hunger is not pain", and by asserting that others should not view hunger as such, you are essentially denying others' experiences which conforms with El Diablo's earlier declaration that "others' opinions are irrelevant".  Just because the fetus can form no opinion at that time I suppose it can't form one at a future date.  Ridiculous.
 

sivispacem
  • sivispacem

    Jo Näkyvi Pohjan Portit

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 14 Feb 2011
  • European-Union
  • Best Poster in Debates 2017
    Contribution Award [D&D, General Chat]
    Most Knowledgeable [Vehicles] 2013
    Best Debater 2017, 2016, 2015, 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011

#60

Posted 02 January 2018 - 06:33 PM

Yeah, I used the term "deprived", as in the adjective, not "deprive" as in the verb.

As do both of the quoted examples I lifted from the Collins English Dictionary, you mook.
 

(Social Welfare) lacking adequate food, shelter, education, etc

Emphasis mine.

We aren't discussing social welfare, so the concept of social deprivation is irrelevant to the subject at hand.
 

That slip helps reveal your crafty debate tactics.

That slip helps reinforce the assertion that your reading comprehension requires significant improvement.
 

The basic point is parents are creating needs when needs themselves were never needed.

This is, to be quite frank, nonsensical drivel.
 

Hunger is the result of a need, a result of lacking.

Hunger, as a human experience, is the result of a certain set of hormonal and chemical changes in the human body. It is simply a conscious or unconscious psychological manifestation of biology. It can be as a result of need, but isn't necessarily. See my previous example- a rat with its hypothalamus removed will be perpetually hungry, even whilst it eats itself to death.
 

Hunger can be viewed as pain.

I note the subtle rephrasing here to try and deflect away from the earlier criticism, but you're still making an unfounded assertion here. If you want to argue that hunger can, and in this context should, be viewed as a type of pain, you need to make a convincing argument, either biological or philosophical, for doing so. You haven't so far, which leads me to believe that you can't. Which renders the assertion intellectually worthless.
 

Is that not a discomforting situation?

Nice weasel words. Are you going to try every sort-of-synonym in an attempt to save your abortion of an argument, or do you want to just call it here and bury the f*ckiing thing like you should have about a page ago?
 

By asserting "hunger is not pain"

Biologically, hunger isn't pain. That is categorical, indisputable fact. If you want to argue otherwise (most probably from a philosophical perspective as you won't manage from a biological one as you're demonstrably wrong), the onus is on you to provide a compelling justification. If you are unable to, then as previously mentioned your assertion is intellectually worthless.
 

Just because the fetus can form no opinion at that time I suppose it can't form one at a future date.  Ridiculous.

In order for someone to decide whether or not they wish to live, they must be in a self-aware state which allows them to rationalise a decision. Personally I believe that any mentally competent consenting adult should be permitted to end their life on their own terms however they wish.

Either way, a presupposed outcome for or against the creation of new life is an unsolvable philosophical dilemma because an entirely hypothetical individual is not capable of decision making until it ceases to become hypothetical, at which point the decision of whether it wants to be alive has already been made for it.
  • Tchuck likes this




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users