Philosophy Now Forum

Dalek Prime wrote: Yes, but only to be used by present existents, not for themselves. It's fucking existential slavery.

Not really. I'm currently contributing towards the pensions of the generation before me. That's how the system works.

Dalek Prime wrote:Hobbes, stop being the most retarded turd on this site. Life is worth living, but not worth starting. Why the fuck can't you wrap your mind about such a simple concept?

I can foresee some colourful language making an appearance. If not then Hobbes isn't the man I think he is.

Dalek Prime wrote:Hobbes, stop being the most retarded turd on this site. Life is worth living, but not worth starting. Why the fuck can't you wrap your mind about such a simple concept?

"Simple concept": stupid idea.
If it's worth living then its worth starting. You are the returd on this issue.

Harbal wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Hobbes, stop being the most retarded turd on this site. Life is worth living, but not worth starting. Why the fuck can't you wrap your mind about such a simple concept?

I can foresee some colourful language making an appearance. If not then Hobbes isn't the man I think he is.

I was under the impression you thought little of him, judging from past discourse.

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Hobbes, stop being the most retarded turd on this site. Life is worth living, but not worth starting. Why the fuck can't you wrap your mind about such a simple concept?

"Simple concept": stupid idea.
If it's worth living then its worth starting. You are the returd on this issue.

For whom is it worth starting?

Dalek Prime wrote:

Hobbes' Choice wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Hobbes, stop being the most retarded turd on this site. Life is worth living, but not worth starting. Why the fuck can't you wrap your mind about such a simple concept?

"Simple concept": stupid idea.
If it's worth living then its worth starting. You are the returd on this issue.

For whom is it worth starting?

For both the parent and the child.
Have you any children?

Harbal wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote:Hobbes, stop being the most retarded turd on this site. Life is worth living, but not worth starting. Why the fuck can't you wrap your mind about such a simple concept?

I can foresee some colourful language making an appearance. If not then Hobbes isn't the man I think he is.

I'm not going to escalate this. He is acting like a RE-turd, because I have hit a raw nerve where his logic has failed.

Harbal wrote:

Dalek Prime wrote: Yes, but only to be used by present existents, not for themselves. It's fucking existential slavery.

Not really. I'm currently contributing towards the pensions of the generation before me. That's how the system works.

Because you were born to serve others. You weren't born for your own desires. Do you recall sitting in the aether, wishing someone would fuck, so you could be born and stuff your face with ice cream?

I still wanna know...

Other than being a descriptive assessment, what good is antinatalism?

Dalek Prime wrote: Because you were born to serve others. You weren't born for your own desires. Do you recall sitting in the aether, wishing someone would fuck, so you could be born and stuff your face with ice cream?

I'm guessing you're American or come from somewhere else that doesn't have a civilised welfare state.

Dalek Prime wrote: I was under the impression you thought little of him, judging from past discourse.

Hobbes's style sometimes rubs me up the wrong way, that's true, and, even though he probably wouldn't admit to this, I think he sometimes find me a teeny bit irritating. But, even so, I bear him no ill will. Besides, it's only an internet forum, it's not like we've murdered each other's families.

Harbal wrote:even though he probably wouldn't admit to this, I think he sometimes find me a teeny bit irritating.

I reckon he might be willing to admit to it. On the basis of the available evidence he rarely withholds his opinions in the interests of diplomacy.

Obvious Leo wrote:
I reckon he might be willing to admit to it.

I reckon he might, as well, but I was just trying to downplay the situation a little.

henry quirk wrote:Okay, I get it now.

And: I agree, future folks aren't neccessary (in an objective sense).

Not sure what use our agreement is to either of us, or to any one else.

Animals are gonna keep on, keepin' on with the baby-makin', neccessary or not.

That is: other than being a descriptive assessment, what good is antinatalism?

What good is any idea in the long run, if no one cares about it. But I care about it from an ethical standpoint, because I care about suffering. And that which doesn't exist can't suffer.

Dalek Prime wrote:

henry quirk wrote:"You haven't offered on legitimate defense, besides being defensive. None of you have."

Sure I have, you can't see it cuz your head is buried in your own peculiar philo-hole.

Again: I like being alive. I like every pleasure, pain, success, failure, and on and on. I find living preferable to not living. What other defense do I need?

Your position, 'I would have no consciousness in the universe', you defend how? With this, 'Because the universe...doeesn't require it', despite the fact it is the very workings of reality, the universe, that give rise to life.

Not really seein' how your view is on firmer ground than mine.

The universe doesn't require it, as you suggest. If it did, it would have began consciousness from it's inception. As to you liking it, that's because you exist, and can't imagine otherwise.

Example. If you had no concept of candy, fruit, or sweet, would you sit around, pining for a candy apple? You know of it, so you automatically pine for it (consciousness, that is). And fuck off with your assumptions of my thought processes, or lack thereof. Just discuss this rationally, or piss off.

One of the assumptions presented is that the universe doesn't need beings. Again, how do you know this. Henry raised a reasonabe objection. Your response doesn't hold up. It may not have needed beings in the beginning. However, right now - there are sentient beings in the universe. How do you know that such 'energy' ( positive and negative ) is not required for growth and development of stated universe.
By insisting on there being absolute nonexistence, this theory could result in the universe failing to thrive. A dying universe. Way to go.
Forced nonexistence is not shown to be either morally or rationally better than the alternative.To use future sentient suffering as a justification for universal and absolute nonexistence is unreasonable, with a more than a hint of madness.