So, I'm sufficiently stoned enough that I'd like to see a conversation here on antinatalism - what do you fine people think of it?
5 comments:
FLP
said...
You did put it on your blog...way to keep your word.
At 1:45, you state regarding antinatalists, "Clearly there is something about life that makes them want to remain alive as opposed to killing themselves. Whatever that thing is that they find sufficiently beneficial to warrant their continued existence I think is enough to justify people reproducing."
I know from personal experience that pain and fear--(stating "pain and fear" is a redundant statement because fear is a type of pain, but I ask that you excuse me for clarity's sake)--is my primary motive to continue my existence. So already that argument lacks persuasive value for me since I'm an antinatalist.
I also proffer that, for most people, pain and fear are strong motivators to continue their existence through sustaining activities--(by sustaining activities I mean eating, drinking, taking proactive efforts to avoid booby traps, etc.). Without pain and fear, I proffer that there would be a general indifference toward continuing existence.
Essentially, you implicitly--(not explicitly)--state that pain and fear are good justifications for reproducing.
I think you're probably more sensible in two ways and that you just made an honest mistake:
1) You're sensible enough to know that people don't only sustain their own lives because life is so wonderful. Pain and fear are factors as well. They're double-edged swords; they both encourage and discourage continuing living at the same time.
AND 2) You're sensible enough to know that pain and fear are not positive experiences. It's foolish to reproduce so that offspring get the "beneficial opportunity" to experience pain and fear--(I'm being sarcastic).
I only watched about half the video, but I'll watch the rest if you'd like me to explicitly address any of the other points you make in your video.
As I was saying, pain and fear are the sum total of human experience. Further, I spoke a thing, or things, which would be "sufficiently beneficial"; if the examples to which you cite fail to be that, then they are already excluded from the conversation.
Furthermore, I did not argue that pain and fear or things of that nature are beneficial to justify one's remaining alive. Later on, I went on to explain that there is some value in life to the extent that antinatalists aren't lining up to off themselves en masse.
Something has induced them to consider their lives (or perhaps some other people's lives) adequately valuable and worth preserving that they work very hard to remain alive for as long a duration as possible.
How you take a statement and then trumpet on about fear and pain is quite difficult to understand since I have at no point argued that these are even necessary conditions for life to exist. There is nothing that requires pain or fear be a permanent condition humans must bear.
You asked me how I argue that pain and fear justify reproduction. I have specifically not argued that, but you pretend that I have.
It is not an explicit claim I've made, and it is certainly not an implied argument I've made no matter how you try to magic away the fact that I spent a great deal of time of discussing that it may well be possible to eliminate them.
You may proffer all you'd like, but that isn't an argument. It's an assertion, and a naive one at that.
To claim that without pain or fear people would be indifferent to continuing to exist is on its face stupid. For I have already said that many people exist and have the idea that their lives are valuable to them and they wish to remain alive. You are the first person I've met who's ever argued that without being tortured in some regard, you'd be indifferent to dying.
But that's fine as your personal intellectual and emotional limitations don't generalize; your personal 'feelings' and ability to wildly assert whatever you want as being some kind of immutable and brute fact of the universe is precisely meaningless. Your personal experiences are--at most, and no further--factors that influence you. Your personal experiences compel nothing of anyone else - particularly adopting the dubious proposition that pain and suffering are the elements of life that provide some impetus to remain alive.
I remain alive because I thoroughly enjoy it.
I made no mistake. Your failure to understand logical implications and your inability to be constrained by logical necessities of a statement do not, alas, constitute an error on my part.
I have not argued that pain and fear are never factors in some people's lives. I have based no argument on their existence.
I have said they are not necessary conditions. I have not said or implied they are an argument for or against life - that is your argument, not mine.
You may be sarcastic all you'd like. This adds no weight to your otherwise vacuous, counterfactual assertion that I have argued as much when I have, in fact, not made that argument.
So, let me get this straight - you watched half of the video and thus are openly ignorant of what my argument actually is, yet you feel entitled to tell me what I actually did argue.
That's, um, rather closed-minded of you. It's also stupid and arguing in bad faith.
I didn't have any intention to "argue". I cherry-picked one statement near the beginning that I've been exposed to a least a half-dozen times and attempted to show you that it's a poor argument against antinatalism.
Jeez, the thanks you get for pointing things out to people.
Um, no. You took one small segment out of the video, misrepresented what it said, demonstrated an inability to successful use logic by declaring for no reason other than what you decided to imagine in your head, and then went on to keep declaring the logically and factually untenable position that the words I spoke entailed a claim I specifically and expressly didn't make. When pointed out that I didn't make that claim, you kept on persisting that I did, but that I'm simply insufficiently bright to understand what the words I used actually mean.
For all of this, you've presented not the slightest argument that my words mean what you declare by fiat they mean. You've asserted the nonsensical and then pretended that the imaginary meaning you foisted upon my words actually somehow mapped reality.
That's not pointing something out to me with respect to what I've said. It does point out, one notes, that you are have rather curious ability to invent precisely wrong conclusions specifically not countenanced by my words.
And then, of course, you admit that you didn't even watch the video, so you have as a matter of necessity no understanding of what my total position in that video was since you chose to not watch it. Not letting this necessary ignorance on your part with respect to what I was actually arguing, you sallied forth as though your errant thoughts have any merit.
And this you reinforce by the cunning use of proclaiming loudly that you just state positions as nothing but assertions. You 'proffer' supposed statements about quite a lot of things for which you have demonstrated no underpinning beyond how you choose to feel about it.
Why is the sky that funny colour? And are the flies bothering you?
Population will expand to fit the food available. No exceptions. "Quality" of life irrelevant. Inflection point will be reached. Mass die-off. If not thee and me, because we've thoughtfully and probably accidentally contrived to off ourselves somehow, then some other mother. Probably Chinese or African.
Then the survivors will start to run up the tab again. While congratulating themselves on their imagined "special qualities" they fondly believe have ensured their legacy. 'Cos they'd die of fright if they thought for a minute it was merely dumb luck.
Population dynamics, same as it is for foxes and rabbits. Or voles, mice and lemmings. "Suffering" is of no consequence to the process.
5 comments:
You did put it on your blog...way to keep your word.
At 1:45, you state regarding antinatalists, "Clearly there is something about life that makes them want to remain alive as opposed to killing themselves. Whatever that thing is that they find sufficiently beneficial to warrant their continued existence I think is enough to justify people reproducing."
I know from personal experience that pain and fear--(stating "pain and fear" is a redundant statement because fear is a type of pain, but I ask that you excuse me for clarity's sake)--is my primary motive to continue my existence. So already that argument lacks persuasive value for me since I'm an antinatalist.
I also proffer that, for most people, pain and fear are strong motivators to continue their existence through sustaining activities--(by sustaining activities I mean eating, drinking, taking proactive efforts to avoid booby traps, etc.). Without pain and fear, I proffer that there would be a general indifference toward continuing existence.
Essentially, you implicitly--(not explicitly)--state that pain and fear are good justifications for reproducing.
I think you're probably more sensible in two ways and that you just made an honest mistake:
1) You're sensible enough to know that people don't only sustain their own lives because life is so wonderful. Pain and fear are factors as well. They're double-edged swords; they both encourage and discourage continuing living at the same time.
AND 2) You're sensible enough to know that pain and fear are not positive experiences. It's foolish to reproduce so that offspring get the "beneficial opportunity" to experience pain and fear--(I'm being sarcastic).
I only watched about half the video, but I'll watch the rest if you'd like me to explicitly address any of the other points you make in your video.
Cheers!
As I was saying, pain and fear are the sum total of human experience. Further, I spoke a thing, or things, which would be "sufficiently beneficial"; if the examples to which you cite fail to be that, then they are already excluded from the conversation.
Furthermore, I did not argue that pain and fear or things of that nature are beneficial to justify one's remaining alive. Later on, I went on to explain that there is some value in life to the extent that antinatalists aren't lining up to off themselves en masse.
Something has induced them to consider their lives (or perhaps some other people's lives) adequately valuable and worth preserving that they work very hard to remain alive for as long a duration as possible.
How you take a statement and then trumpet on about fear and pain is quite difficult to understand since I have at no point argued that these are even necessary conditions for life to exist. There is nothing that requires pain or fear be a permanent condition humans must bear.
You asked me how I argue that pain and fear justify reproduction. I have specifically not argued that, but you pretend that I have.
It is not an explicit claim I've made, and it is certainly not an implied argument I've made no matter how you try to magic away the fact that I spent a great deal of time of discussing that it may well be possible to eliminate them.
You may proffer all you'd like, but that isn't an argument. It's an assertion, and a naive one at that.
To claim that without pain or fear people would be indifferent to continuing to exist is on its face stupid. For I have already said that many people exist and have the idea that their lives are valuable to them and they wish to remain alive. You are the first person I've met who's ever argued that without being tortured in some regard, you'd be indifferent to dying.
But that's fine as your personal intellectual and emotional limitations don't generalize; your personal 'feelings' and ability to wildly assert whatever you want as being some kind of immutable and brute fact of the universe is precisely meaningless. Your personal experiences are--at most, and no further--factors that influence you. Your personal experiences compel nothing of anyone else - particularly adopting the dubious proposition that pain and suffering are the elements of life that provide some impetus to remain alive.
I remain alive because I thoroughly enjoy it.
I made no mistake. Your failure to understand logical implications and your inability to be constrained by logical necessities of a statement do not, alas, constitute an error on my part.
I have not argued that pain and fear are never factors in some people's lives. I have based no argument on their existence.
I have said they are not necessary conditions. I have not said or implied they are an argument for or against life - that is your argument, not mine.
You may be sarcastic all you'd like. This adds no weight to your otherwise vacuous, counterfactual assertion that I have argued as much when I have, in fact, not made that argument.
So, let me get this straight - you watched half of the video and thus are openly ignorant of what my argument actually is, yet you feel entitled to tell me what I actually did argue.
That's, um, rather closed-minded of you. It's also stupid and arguing in bad faith.
I didn't have any intention to "argue". I cherry-picked one statement near the beginning that I've been exposed to a least a half-dozen times and attempted to show you that it's a poor argument against antinatalism.
Jeez, the thanks you get for pointing things out to people.
Um, no. You took one small segment out of the video, misrepresented what it said, demonstrated an inability to successful use logic by declaring for no reason other than what you decided to imagine in your head, and then went on to keep declaring the logically and factually untenable position that the words I spoke entailed a claim I specifically and expressly didn't make. When pointed out that I didn't make that claim, you kept on persisting that I did, but that I'm simply insufficiently bright to understand what the words I used actually mean.
For all of this, you've presented not the slightest argument that my words mean what you declare by fiat they mean. You've asserted the nonsensical and then pretended that the imaginary meaning you foisted upon my words actually somehow mapped reality.
That's not pointing something out to me with respect to what I've said. It does point out, one notes, that you are have rather curious ability to invent precisely wrong conclusions specifically not countenanced by my words.
And then, of course, you admit that you didn't even watch the video, so you have as a matter of necessity no understanding of what my total position in that video was since you chose to not watch it. Not letting this necessary ignorance on your part with respect to what I was actually arguing, you sallied forth as though your errant thoughts have any merit.
And this you reinforce by the cunning use of proclaiming loudly that you just state positions as nothing but assertions. You 'proffer' supposed statements about quite a lot of things for which you have demonstrated no underpinning beyond how you choose to feel about it.
Again, that's not arguing in good faith.
Why is the sky that funny colour?
And are the flies bothering you?
Population will expand to fit the food available. No exceptions. "Quality" of life irrelevant.
Inflection point will be reached. Mass die-off. If not thee and me, because we've thoughtfully and probably accidentally contrived to off ourselves somehow, then some other mother. Probably Chinese or African.
Then the survivors will start to run up the tab again. While congratulating themselves on their imagined "special qualities" they fondly believe have ensured their legacy. 'Cos they'd die of fright if they thought for a minute it was merely dumb luck.
Population dynamics, same as it is for foxes and rabbits. Or voles, mice and lemmings.
"Suffering" is of no consequence to the process.
Have I got the right end of the stick on this?
Post a Comment