Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:11 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276

People thinking of having children, can you consider the following points?


This is for people thinking of procreating at some point in the future:

-Your future child does not need to be born
- Your future child is not asking to be born
- There is no pain, suffering, or deprivation in the realm of non existence
- Your future child is guaranteed to experience pain, suffering, and deprivation.
- Your future child is guaranteed to die
  #2  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:17 PM
Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 21,656
Pssst, Marcus: every would-be parent already knows these things.

As a non-parent myself, I'm certainly on board with the position that not everyone needs to be a parent and failure to procreate doesn't prevent you from having a happy and fulfilling life. But I think it's senseless to expect that such truisms will or should deter people who actually want to be parents.
  #3  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:22 PM
greenmario is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 129
All of those things listed apply to the life I am currently living, and I would still give existence a solid 3 1/2 stars out of 4. So, yeah given the opportunity I think its worth the risk to have a kid.
  #4  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:31 PM
Procrustus is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Pacific NW. Ą
Posts: 11,716
I love my life. My kids love their lives. Each day is full of joy and wonder. So, that's more to factor in.
  #5  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:33 PM
Bone's Avatar
Bone is offline
Extrajudicial
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 9,982

Moderating


[moderating]

Moving from Great Debates to MPSIMS.

[/moderating]
  #6  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:33 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
This is for people thinking of procreating at some point in the future:

-Your future child does not need to be born
- Your future child is not asking to be born
- There is no pain, suffering, or deprivation in the realm of non existence
- Your future child is guaranteed to experience pain, suffering, and deprivation.
- Your future child is guaranteed to die
Why should they consider these questions? What effect do you hope that considering these questions will have? Why do you think these questions are worthy of consideration?
  #7  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:52 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 27,482
And here I thought that my (hypothetical) future child was guaranteed an immortal life of pleasure, fun and excess. Fortunately, Marcus Flavius is here to set me straight.
  #8  
Old 09-07-2017, 06:59 PM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Most people would rather exist than not, so the statistical odds are pretty good you are not dooming an individual to a hellish life of non-stop suffering. In fact, chances are much better now than they used to be.

Good luck talking people out of procreating. It's about as close to an imperative, scientifically speaking, as we are ever going to get. Literally, the whole point of existence is to reproduce. Our entire biology is structured around making that happen. Our fancy brains developed complex civilizations, economies, governments, and message boards, all in the interest of propagating the human species.

Not everyone does, or necessarily should, feel the need to make babies (I personally choose to adopt), but it's endemic to humanity as a whole, and attempting to shame would-be parents is not likely to change that.
  #9  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:11 PM
Yodalicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA
Posts: 1,336
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
-Your future child is guaranteed to die
So is my future spouse, my current family and friends, my pets... Are you saying we should all be shut-ins and never interact with anyone; never have relationships?


Sent from my SPH-L720T using Tapatalk
  #10  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:13 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
Literally, the whole point of existence is to reproduce. Our entire biology is structured around making that happen. Our fancy brains developed complex civilizations, economies, governments, and message boards, all in the interest of propagating the human species.
.
You are assigning a teleology to something which has no such thing. You could just as easily say the point of existence is to go extinct, and we're the failures because we can't stop breeding
  #11  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:18 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
And here I thought that my (hypothetical) future child was guaranteed an immortal life of pleasure, fun and excess. Fortunately, Marcus Flavius is here to set me straight.
Why are you planning to impose certain death and suffering, and all the deprivations that come with the disgraceful slavery of biological existence, onto an innocent being? Would it not be better to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience death, pain, suffering, misery, etc etc?
  #12  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:28 PM
SpoilerVirgin is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: An antique land
Posts: 7,003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
Why are you planning to impose certain death and suffering, and all the deprivations that come with the disgraceful slavery of biological existence, onto an innocent being? Would it not be better to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience death, pain, suffering, misery, etc etc?
Presumably you believe that the unborn cannot possibly experience joy, love, beauty, music, ice cream, etc. Why would you want to deprive them of all of those things?

I personally am very happy to have been born and to be alive now. One of the sorrows of my life is that I have not been able to share those experiences with a child.
  #13  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:34 PM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
You could just as easily say the point of existence is to go extinct, and we're the failures because we can't stop breeding
That makes no sense.

There's no implied value-judgment in the fact that we are biologically programmed to breed, it's just scientific reality. So I'm not sure what being a ''failure'' has to do with anything.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius
Would it not be better to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience death, pain, suffering, misery, etc etc?
Would it not be cruel to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience love, hope, joy, euphoria, etc. etc?

I always see your sort of arguments as begging the question. You rest on the assumption that every form of suffering is inherently bad, and that avoiding suffering is always better, which is hardly a universally accepted truth.

Furthermore, your ''disgraceful slavery of biological existence'' is not an ironclad fact. It's more of an argument from emotion, so the entire foundation on which you've built your argument is unstable. Even as a person who has repeatedly and chronically throughout my life wished not to exist, I reject your characterization of what it means to be alive.
  #14  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:34 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpoilerVirgin View Post
Presumably you believe that the unborn cannot possibly experience joy, love, beauty, music, ice cream, etc. Why would you want to deprive them of all of those things?
.
The nonexistent cannot be deprived of anything
  #15  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:36 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 27,482
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
And here I thought that my (hypothetical) future child was guaranteed an immortal life of pleasure, fun and excess. Fortunately, Marcus Flavius is here to set me straight.
Why are you planning to impose certain death and suffering, and all the deprivations that come with the disgraceful slavery of biological existence, onto an innocent being? Would it not be better to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience death, pain, suffering, misery, etc etc?
My (hypothetical) future child might write music to rival Beethoven, Bach or McCartney. My (hypothetical) future child might find the cure for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease or cerebral palsy. My (hypothetical) future child might smile and laugh and in doing so, bring me great joy.

Why would you want to prevent the existence of such a wonderful person?
  #16  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:42 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,488
Kantian imperative. So dull.

Reading ahead, are you? They don't usually teach this stuff in Intro to Philosophy until after mid-terms.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #17  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:43 PM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
The nonexistent cannot be deprived of anything
Have you discussed this with your parents, or that therapist they spent all that money on?
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #18  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:43 PM
GrumpyBunny is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: behind the sofa
Posts: 4,823
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daddypants View Post
So is my future spouse, my current family and friends, my pets... Are you saying we should all be shut-ins and never interact with anyone; never have relationships?
Works great for me!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewey Finn View Post
My (hypothetical) future child might write music to rival Beethoven, Bach or McCartney. My (hypothetical) future child might find the cure for cancer, Alzheimer’s disease or cerebral palsy. My (hypothetical) future child might smile and laugh and in doing so, bring me great joy.

Why would you want to prevent the existence of such a wonderful person?
My (hypothetical) future child would literally be a miracle, and in being such, would make us a lot of money.

Last edited by GrumpyBunny; 09-07-2017 at 07:45 PM.
  #19  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:54 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
we are biologically programmed to breed,
No, we are not


Quote:
Would it not be cruel to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience love, hope, joy, euphoria, etc. etc?
-The nonexistent cannot be deprived of these things since they have no desire for them.
- Why do love, joy and hope need to exist?
- Pain and suffering are always more morally significant than pleasure and good feelings.

Quote:
I always see your sort of arguments as begging the question. You rest on the assumption that every form of suffering is inherently bad, and that avoiding suffering is always better, which is hardly a universally accepted truth.
Most of us believe that it is wrong to impose harm, death, and suffering on an innocent being.

[QUOTE ]Furthermore, your ''disgraceful slavery of biological existence'' is not an ironclad fact. It's more of an argument from emotio[/QUOTE]

No, it isn't. We are all literally slaves of the flesh, whether we are conscious of this fact or not.
  #20  
Old 09-07-2017, 07:56 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Have you discussed this with your parents, or that therapist they spent all that money on?
Funny
  #21  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:01 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,445
We had this thread recently. I won't go in circles on this because my odds of changing your point of view is somewhere between 0% and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

Being alive for most people is a net positive. The vast majority of people who are alive prefer to be alive. The vast majority of people who are alive do not wish they had never existed. This is true even for people who are critically ill and in pain.
  #22  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:12 PM
Chessic Sense is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 6,689
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
Most of us believe that it is wrong to impose harm, death, and suffering on an innocent being.
Most of us believe the being has to exist first. Most of us do not believe it is wrong to impose harm, death, and suffering on beings that don't already exist.
  #23  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:20 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeepKillBeep View Post
We had this thread recently. I won't go in circles on this because my odds of changing your point of view is somewhere between 0% and 0.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%.

Being alive for most people is a net positive. The vast majority of people who are alive prefer to be alive. The vast majority of people who are alive do not wish they had never existed. This is true even for people who are critically ill and in pain.
The vast majority of heroin addicts are also prefer to keep using heroin than to not use heroin.
  #24  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:32 PM
Dewey Finn is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 27,482
So why would you deny your hypothetical children the pleasure of shooting up heroin?
  #25  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:35 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
-The nonexistent cannot be deprived of these things since they have no desire for them.
Nor can they be harmed against their will since they have no will. Talking about harming the nonexistent is gibberish. When you say,
Quote:
Would it not be better to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience death, pain, suffering, misery, etc etc?
That's even worse gibberish, since the nonexistent are the textbook opposite of "beings", and there is no place in which they exist, since they don't exist.

As near as I can tell, your argument circles back inevitably to these self-defeating assumptions--if "nonexistent beings" is necessarily oxymoronic, then any discussion of harming them is gibberish.

We can only talk of harm done to existent beings. And the best way to judge whether something done to existent beings is harmful is to ask them.

Which brings us back to the foolish heroin addict analogy. We know that a person addicted to heroin can have a better existence, and so we help them reach that even if they might resist at some point. But you're trying to argue that existing beings are better off not existing, and again, that's oxymoronic gibberish: nonexistence precludes the use of variants of the verb "to be" and its use to link to any adjectives.
Quote:
- Pain and suffering are always more morally significant than pleasure and good feelings.
You say that, but I prefer Kahlil Gibran on this topic:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prophet
Your joy is your sorrow unmasked.
And the selfsame well from which your laughter rises was oftentimes filled with your tears.
And how else can it be?
The deeper that sorrow carves into your being, the more joy you can contain.
Is not the cup that holds your wine the very cup that was burned in the potter's oven?
And is not the lute that soothes your spirit, the very wood that was hollowed with knives?
When you are joyous, look deep into your heart and you shall find it is only that which has given you sorrow that is giving you joy.
When you are sorrowful look again in your heart, and you shall see that in truth you are weeping for that which has been your delight.

Some of you say, "Joy is greater thar sorrow," and others say, "Nay, sorrow is the greater."
But I say unto you, they are inseparable.
Together they come, and when one sits, alone with you at your board, remember that the other is asleep upon your bed.

Verily you are suspended like scales between your sorrow and your joy.
Only when you are empty are you at standstill and balanced.
When the treasure-keeper lifts you to weigh his gold and his silver, needs must your joy or your sorrow rise or fall.
__________________
"Everyone regards themselves as moderate, because they know some other sumbitch who's twice as crazy as they are." -Timothy Tyson
  #26  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:36 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chessic Sense View Post
Most of us believe the being has to exist first. Most of us do not believe it is wrong to impose harm, death, and suffering on beings that don't already exist.
This is a silly semantic game.
  #27  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:41 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
This is a silly semantic game.
Not remotely. Your entire thesis revolves around the idea that a move from nonexistence to existence harms the entity who exists, but that's a nonsensical idea.

It may be that you don't understand the difference between zero and null. You seem to want to weight pleasure/pain on a positive/negative scale, and you believe that existence necessarily moves the scale into the negative zone. But that doesn't work, since the scale doesn't start at zero; the scale is nonexistent prior to existence, so there's no move initiated by the moment of existence.

As long as you confuse zero and null, your argument is going to sound totally convincing to you and totally ridiculous to anyone who understands this difference.
__________________
"Everyone regards themselves as moderate, because they know some other sumbitch who's twice as crazy as they are." -Timothy Tyson
  #28  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:46 PM
Acsenray is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: U.S.A.
Posts: 34,926
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
This is a silly semantic game.
irony!
  #29  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:48 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Nor can they be harmed against their will since they have no will. Talking about harming the nonexistent is gibberish. When you say,
That's even worse gibberish, since the nonexistent are the textbook opposite of "beings", and there is no place in which they exist, since they don't exist.

As near as I can tell, your argument circles back inevitably to these self-defeating assumptions--if "nonexistent beings" is necessarily oxymoronic, then any discussion of harming them is gibberish.

We can only talk of harm done to existent beings. And the best way to judge whether something done to existent beings is harmful is to ask them.

Which brings us back to the foolish heroin addict analogy. We know that a person addicted to heroin can have a better existence, and so we help them reach that even if they might resist at some point. But you're trying to argue that existing beings are better off not existing, and again, that's oxymoronic gibberish: nonexistence precludes the use of variants of the verb "to be" and its use to link to any adjectives.

You say that, but I prefer Kahlil Gibran on this topic:
Again, silly semantic games. By this logic, any moral discussion on something that may happen in the future is automatically invalid, since the future and future beings "don't exist. "

I used the heroin addict analogy to show that just because someone is attatched to a thing does not make that thing good.
  #30  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:50 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
Again, silly semantic games. By this logic, any moral discussion on something that may happen in the future is automatically invalid, since the future and future beings "don't exist. "
People who currently exist become people who will exist. Changing the quality of their existence from good (currently) to bad (future), or from good (future) to bad (farther future), or even from possibly good (one possible future) to possibly bad (another possible future) involves a sensible discussion of existence.

Yours is gibberish, because a being that doesn't exist necessarily cannot have its existence worsened by existing.
Quote:
I used the heroin addict analogy to show that just because someone is attatched to a thing does not make that thing good.
Yes, and I refuted it to show why it's a shitty analogy. I think we're both clear on what the other person is doing.
__________________
"Everyone regards themselves as moderate, because they know some other sumbitch who's twice as crazy as they are." -Timothy Tyson

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 09-07-2017 at 08:51 PM.
  #31  
Old 09-07-2017, 08:51 PM
BeepKillBeep is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Canada
Posts: 2,445
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
The vast majority of heroin addicts are also prefer to keep using heroin than to not use heroin.
Oh are we already at the building silly non-equivalences? That was quick.

If you stub your toe, it would best if you never had a foot at all because the joy of being able to walk is not worth the risk of stubbing your toe.

Last edited by BeepKillBeep; 09-07-2017 at 08:51 PM.
  #32  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:03 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
People who currently exist become people who will exist. Changing the quality of their existence from good (currently) to bad (future), or from good (future) to bad (farther future), or even from possibly good (one possible future) to possibly bad (another possible future) involves a sensible discussion of existence.

Yours is gibberish, because a being that doesn't exist necessarily cannot have its existence worsened by existing.

Yes, and I refuted it to show why it's a shitty analogy. I think we're both clear on what the other person is doing.
Future people do not exist.
  #33  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:11 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
Future people do not exist.
Yes*, but by definition they will, and we can therefore apply some of the analysis I already discussed and you quoted:
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
Changing the quality of their existence . . . from good (future) to bad (farther future), or even from possibly good (one possible future) to possibly bad (another possible future) involves a sensible discussion of existence.
Those future people who WILL not exist are by definition not future people.

Again, you're confused about what "null" means. Once you fix this misapprehension and apply it to your argument, you'll see it crumble; until then, you'll misunderstand every objection made to your argument.

* Note that your term "future people" is ambiguous. I'm taking it to mean "people who do not exist now but will exist in the future," not simply "people who will exist in the future." With the latter meaning, your statement would be false.
__________________
"Everyone regards themselves as moderate, because they know some other sumbitch who's twice as crazy as they are." -Timothy Tyson

Last edited by Left Hand of Dorkness; 09-07-2017 at 09:12 PM.
  #34  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:19 PM
Marcus Flavius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Posts: 276
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Yes*, but by definition they will, and we can therefore apply some of the analysis I already discussed and you quoted:

Those future people who WILL not exist are by definition not future people.

Again, you're confused about what "null" means. Once you fix this misapprehension and apply it to your argument, you'll see it crumble; until then, you'll misunderstand every objection made to your argument.

* Note that your term "future people" is ambiguous. I'm taking it to mean "people who do not exist now but will exist in the future," not simply "people who will exist in the future." With the latter meaning, your statement would be false.
Are you telling me you would not be opposed to two people trying to conceive a child in the midst of a genocidal war and apocalyptic famine/plague?

If you would be opposed, why?
  #35  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:32 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 40,271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
Are you telling me you would not be opposed to two people trying to conceive a child in the midst of a genocidal war and apocalyptic famine/plague?

If you would be opposed, why?
I'm happy to address this question--it's an entirely different argument from the foolish one about how nonexistence is better than existence. What I won't do is to hop back and forth as though they're the same.

So: do you concede that your previous argument, the one I was addressing earlier, is foolish? If you do, and if you'll stop making it, I'll move on. Otherwise, let's stick to one subject at a time, please.
__________________
"Everyone regards themselves as moderate, because they know some other sumbitch who's twice as crazy as they are." -Timothy Tyson
  #36  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:43 PM
iiandyiiii's Avatar
iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 32,573
I like existing, even though I've experienced pain and suffering. That my existence will probably eventually end doesn't mean I'd rather not exist. And most of the people I've talked to about this feel similarly. Thus I'm fine with creating more people to exist when the resources exist to make sure they're able to have a good chance at an enjoyable existence.
  #37  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:52 PM
nightshadea is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: a condo in hell 10th lvl
Posts: 4,549
is this guy machinas sock? because the posting style is the same...............
__________________
"its easier and better to get forgiven than permission"

"theres no point in telling me that the wisdom of a fool cant set me free "
  #38  
Old 09-07-2017, 09:54 PM
kanicbird is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 1999
Posts: 19,215
Your future child may have the answer to end the suffering of all humanity. Or just some.
  #39  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:20 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
No, we are not
Wrong! If we are biologically programmed for anything, it is to breed.

If your parents didn't have any children, odds are you won't either.
  #40  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:25 PM
Voyager's Avatar
Voyager is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Deep Space
Posts: 45,117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
Why are you planning to impose certain death and suffering, and all the deprivations that come with the disgraceful slavery of biological existence, onto an innocent being? Would it not be better to leave that being in a place where they cannot possibly experience death, pain, suffering, misery, etc etc?
Well, I didn't impose life on 99.99999% of my sperm, and my wife didn't on some smaller but still large percentage of her eggs.
And they never write. Humph.

The two we did impose life are pretty damn happy about it. The older happy enough to create a new life also. Who is young, but still pretty happy.
We impose some suffering on others all the time - surgery, shots, excessive physical activity. It is for the greater good.

And I'm sorry for you. Your life must be so miserable that you want to withhold pleasure from others.
  #41  
Old 09-07-2017, 10:29 PM
zoid's Avatar
zoid is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago Il
Posts: 10,133
Somebody's mom missed their birthday - Again!
  #42  
Old 09-08-2017, 04:46 AM
kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 31,007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
Why are you planning to impose certain death and suffering, and all the deprivations that come with the disgraceful slavery of biological existeqnce, onto an innocent being? Would it not be better to leavethat being in a placewhere they cannot possibly experience death, pain, suffering, misery, etc etc?
To what "being" do you refer here?

And what "place"?
__________________
CHOKEONATURDLEFTWINGCUTESYSEMANTICBITCH!!!! Scylla, in this post.

Last edited by kaylasdad99; 09-08-2017 at 04:51 AM.
  #43  
Old 09-08-2017, 06:17 AM
cochrane is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: The Nekkid Pueblo
Posts: 21,127
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
This is for people thinking of procreating at some point in the future:

-Your future child does not need to be born
- Your future child is not asking to be born
- There is no pain, suffering, or deprivation in the realm of non existence
- Your future child is guaranteed to experience pain, suffering, and deprivation.
- Your future child is guaranteed to die
- Your future child is guaranteed to be born naked.
  #44  
Old 09-08-2017, 06:40 AM
Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Greater Croydonia
Posts: 22,655
I remember when I first discovered Radiohead too.
  #45  
Old 09-08-2017, 07:02 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
You are assigning a teleology to something which has no such thing.
A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg.
--Samuel Butler

  #46  
Old 09-08-2017, 07:08 AM
Darren Garrison's Avatar
Darren Garrison is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2016
Posts: 9,794
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
Kantian imperative. So dull.

Reading ahead, are you? They don't usually teach this stuff in Intro to Philosophy until after mid-terms.
Nah, he's already out of college--the five most useless, pointless, and boring years of his life.
  #47  
Old 09-08-2017, 07:33 AM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
The OP appears to think he's being rational, but rejects basic scientific fact and asserts subjective opinion as if it is fact. These are the tricky ones, because they frame their arguments in a way that appears rational, despite the fact they can't be reasoned with.

I think there are some reasonable positions for choosing not to add more people to the planet, but this isn't one of them.

He doesn't need a good counter argument, he needs Prozac.
  #48  
Old 09-08-2017, 07:49 AM
Spice Weasel is offline
Guest
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Michigan
Posts: 16,870
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darren Garrison View Post
He must have skipped biology.
  #49  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:17 AM
QuickSilver is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 17,488
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spice Weasel View Post
He must have skipped biology.
Should have skipped philosophy.
__________________
St. QuickSilver: Patron Saint of Thermometers.
  #50  
Old 09-08-2017, 08:22 AM
Ají de Gallina's Avatar
Ají de Gallina is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Lima, Perú
Posts: 4,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus Flavius View Post
This is for people thinking of procreating at some point in the future:

-Your future child does not need to be born
- Your future child is not asking to be born
- There is no pain, suffering, or deprivation in the realm of non existence
- Your future child is guaranteed to experience pain, suffering, and deprivation.
- Your future child is guaranteed to die
If I thought of life like I would not only NOT have kids, I will have suicidal urges all the time.
Thankfully, I don't believe it.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017