quote
follow
|
24-03-2014 Hey Rina,Umm I'm a total idiot and thought you were sending me a friend request on Facebook because we have some friends in common. And while I was clicking to accept friend requests I accidently sent you a request thinking that I was accepting your request lol. I just started facebook and I'm a total noob at it. Just if you wonder why Riya Kaye is sending you a request, that's just me, you don't have to accept it if you don't want, since we don't really know each other. Sorry lol. Hope you're doing ok, take. Riya |
|
03-04-2014 Hiyou have some pics of a cruise in the med. What year was that? and you said Norwegian Epic? |
|
03-04-2014 Your aphorism collection first confronted me with my lack of Voltaire and the french language in general so it might make sense to finally learn French now by reading and reciting the original V. - a kind of reason. Besides that the femme fatal part should be removed because I liked it too much. Viewing the video concerning the Ukraine left me a bit tired, which is not your fault but my impression was, that you are also tired of the human abyss. The so called faults of mankind are historically interesting but leave us as helpless as usual (apart from more or less successful attempts to explain the unexplainable or hell to devil).beg your pardon in advance for antiquate, inappropriate behavior (and yes, I envisaged, that my comment might have been hateful in a way I don't know but then I decided that no one can do me no harm) |
[ link ] |
03-04-2014
Good, and I'm learning Spanish. For several reasons. I like it better than French or German or many others - that's the primary one. No, famme fatale should be continued with updates (while I'm still in the shape for it hehe) Viewing the video concerning the Ukraine left me a bit tired, which is not your fault but my impression was, that you are also tired of the human abyss. You can't imagine how tired I am of everything. Dreaming of a quiet village in some sunny country, with little people around. |
|
25-04-2014 Hello Irina. It is always a pleasure to stumble upon a fellow Antinatlist A couple of questions with your permission (which actually congest into one): 1) Hypothetically speaking, provided I find a way to kill someone without him experiencing any sort of negative sensation before and during the act of killing, would you consider this act by itself to be morally wrong ? 2) Bearing in mind the aforementioned hypotetical killing act (which, as you recall, does not cause the victim to experience any sort of a negative sensation) , do you find pro-mortalism, i.e, the idea that killing a person (that is, the average person, you and I for instance) should be endorsed ethically, since it relieves him of the pain which he experiences while continuing to live, to be acceptable, or indeed even endorsed ? Best Wishes. p.s I'm following the Vice news reportage of the events whic hare unfolding in your country... crazy shit. Be safe ! |
[ link ] |
25-04-2014
Hi Your question reminded me of my fav. cartoon Futurama. Where in one of the episodes professor asks Zoidberg to kill him, but Zoidberg must kill him by surprise because he is afraid to die (video). I've heard that challenge before. Well, provided the person to be killed also doesn't have any relatives who'd be grieving and isn't - for example - an anesthesiologist relieving countless peoples' suffering -- that isn't such a wild question to ask ourselves. But of ourse, if we were to endorce this and it would start getting implemented, people would start being afraid of being assasinated and that would cause more suffering. Because of its impracticality on a wide scale I never even gave it much thought. But if just to entertain the idea, I guess pro-mortalism faces a problem of personal autonomy, if we value such, whereby people are free to choose the worse option and we shouldn't be 'imposing good' on them. Of course, we can raise a question of whether autonomy is always the highest ethical concern... p.s. - it's crap. somebody kill me by surprise! |
|
25-04-2014 LOL, kudos on remembering this one ! I love Futurama ("now zoidberg is the popular one !" is one of my all time favorite quotes).I was speaking hypotheticaly ofcourse. I'm attempting to analyze the reasons for which "thou shalt not kill" is considered to be such a basic tenant of ethics. To me, the reason seems obvious; the act of killing involves the causation of suffering. if we take suffering out of the equation, does the imperative of not killing still holds sway ? I myself think that the answer to the above question should be answered in the negative. On a side note, as far as impracticality on a wide scale goes, I think the same can be said about AN, don't you think ? prof. Benatar himself acknowledges that there is no real chance of his ideas having any influence on baby-making. Following your advice, I'm raising the question of whether autonomy is of the highest ethical concern ? |
[ link ] |
25-04-2014
I'm attempting to analyze the reasons for which "thou shalt not kill" is considered to be such a basic tenant of ethics. Yes well not without a contradiction though. Untimely death is considered bad whether it is a killing or one caused by an accident, natural disaster or disease. Yet the ultimate cause of death - birth - is celebrated. Natalists don't really have a problem with death. Their one kid dies - they'll go for more. Ultimately, it is for those who bring people into this world to answer all the ethical dilemmas. Ok, so you create someone who never asked to be born or consented to this life and death experience, but what do they do if they don't enjoy it - kill themselves? And what about the friends and family and the pain that will be caused to them by his suicide? Should we value his personal autonomy over the suffering of those who love him? Same with euthanasia of seriously ill. Shoud they continue living just for their loved once? In cases like these a non-religious person will be likely to say 'it's a prsonal autonomy thing'. (Good movies on the topic btw Whose Life Is It Anyway? and 'night, Mother) So I mean, it's like people, completely irresponsibly, keep throwing new individuals here, where they exist in a web of ties and consequences and affect others, and then say 'But what about this problem I have created?'. I don't think people only condemn killing because of the suffering it causes. It affects the 'sanctity of life' tenant. The unspoken assumption that life is a miracle, that every human life is precious, etc. If they admit life isn't a value in and of itself they can't be patting themselves on the backs for doing something every animal does - reproducing. I think AN ideas can have influence on baby-making. Just no illusions about them ever becoming too popular. Childfree arguments will work on a wider group of people. But as some people put it, if I convince one person not to procreate, I possibly have stopped a whole web of future reproducton: of their kids, and kids of their kids etc. |
|
25-04-2014 "the sancitity of life"...buhh...probably the most nausating sentence humanity managed to come up with. I certainly agree with your claim about the dissonance between people's actions and moral convictions in the aforementioned regard, but try to detach yourself from both the AN, as well as the everyman's, POV for a minute and examine the matter from a purely analytical ethics angle: if someone tells me "thou shalt not kill" and I ask him "why"? what should be his reply in your opinion ? Thank u for the movie recomendations ! their premise sounds very interesting, and it also reminded me of an excellent film called 'the sunset limited", which I highly recommend in case you haven't seen it. It features Samuel L Jackson and Tommy Lee jones in one of their best performances in my opinion. regarding a person's autonomy, which ethical priority holds more sway in your opinion ? respecting one's autonomy or ending one's suffering ? (keeping in mind that, practical matters aside, what you said about the future suffering that is prevented by convincing people not to procreate can also be achieved by killing them). p.s I get a "Auth thru FB You are not Connected " page when I try to sign up using FB, any idea why ? |
[ link ] |
26-04-2014
if someone tells me "thou shalt not kill" and I ask him "why"? clearly, some murders are justified even by our current common ethics. in self defense for example, in wars... what we usually mean is not killing innocent people for no reason. u said it yourself that it's because of suffering caused by such act. in the end, all ethics is about preventing harm to sentient beings. what you said about the future suffering that is prevented by convincing people not to procreate can also be achieved by killing them unless you mean an instantaneous killing of everyone on the planet i don't see how killing people prevents more harm than it creates. it's the case where the side-effects of a medicine outweighs the benefits. grief of loving relatives and friends is not a mild headache. at least in the case of suicide we can argue the one who took his own life did it because of an extreme anguish, so the grief he caused was at least justified by the ending of intense suffering of that person. we are not all-knowing to figure out whose lives are or would in future be filled with such torment that it's better to kill them to prevent that suffering from taking place while we could create a much bigger amount of it in people who care about that individual. though if you are completey sure there is some 'Maugli' living on a remote island and doesn't have anybody who will miss him - then i guess there is nothing to stop us from saying that the painless killing of that guy in his sleep is beneficial to him. but then this personal autonomy thing. you see, if we throw that away, then we must also agree that one doesn't have a right to suicide or euthanasia because that thing, again, hurts many people around and unless you point to some previllege to do as one pleases with their own body and their own life, you don't have an argument there. and in many other cases that would involve somebody imposing their will and vision of the future on you. so it is kind of important. what do you think about personal autonomy? spreading AN ideas, btw, also causes some suffering, as is spreading atheism ideas. breaking peoples illusions in any shape or form does. but then, giving them false hopes, thereby encouraging procreation - because why it's a wonderful world we live in - results in more people being created who will suffer in one way or another. this is our world: full of difficult ethical choices. no wonder that at some point some prefer nihilism. it just says: 'i give up'. p.s. sorry, i am not a professional programmer and this is the 2nd third-party class I've implemented for FB auth., but they both have stopped working after a while, this latest one was fine just a couple of days ago. |
|
26-04-2014 quote:
what we usually mean is not killing innocent people for no reason Yes, ofcourse, that is the connotation in which I'm using it. quote:
in the end, all ethics is about preventing harm to sentient beings well, I think that's true as far as modern common ethics goes, but it's hard to say that it's the prime concern of all ethical thought. the most obvious counter example being religious ethics, which are theocentric, but there are also others (think about the honor based ethics of feudal Japan for instance). regardless, since we both agree that modern ethical thought (at least most of it) revolves about preventing harm, can we also agree that killing an innocent person is morally acceptable, provided we manage to find a way to completely remove harm from the equation ? quote:
unless you mean an instantaneous killing of everyone on the planet yes, that's what I meant so, autonomy aside, I can safely assume that we agree that the harmless mass killing of pain-perceving beings is "the right thing to do" ? quote:
what do you think about personal autonomy? I personally think that if it leads to harm being ceased, as well as done in a completely harmless way, than people's autonomy should be violated. notice that the objections that you've raised above deal with the harmful consquences that can result from the violation of autonomy, which is not relevant to my idea of a harmless mass killing. can you think of other, non-harm related, possible objections as to why people's personal autonomy shouldn't be violated ? quote:
no wonder that at some point some prefer nihilism Believe me, I often find myself on the brink of adopting it. |
[ link ] |
26-04-2014
well, I think that's true as far as modern common ethics goes, but it's hard to say that it's the prime concern of all ethical thought. i agree, it only applied to our times can we also agree that killing an innocent person is morally acceptable, provided we manage to find a way to completely remove harm from the equation ? provided we manage that, maybe. the only objections i see is that autonomy thing or freedom thing or freedom of will thing in which, frankly, i don't believe. and yet, non of those are absolute, we restrict peoples autonomy all the time for this or that reason. i've also heard the objection of 'stealing the future' from somebody, and then i saw an article somewhere arguing we don't really own our future - but now can't remember where. because we are not imposing death - everybody is destined for it anyway - we are quickening it thereby stealing whatever future that person would have had. so the question is whether we have a right to live until our natural death or accidental or a violent one at the hands of a criminal. so, autonomy aside, I can safely assume that we agree that the harmless mass killing of pain-perceving beings is "the right thing to do" ? look, i don't want to be quoted tomorrow as advocating mass killings i'm using my real name on the internet. i'll just say that if Melancholia scenario were to come true, i'd consider it a very fortunate fate for all sentient beings on earth. oh, let me stick a quote here btw: There will come a time when all of us are dead. All of us. There will come a time when there are no human beings remaining to remember that anyone ever existed or that our species ever did anything. There will be no one left to remember Aristotle or Cleopatra, let alone you. Everything that we did and built and wrote and thought and discovered will be forgotten and all of this will have been for naught. Maybe that time is coming soon and maybe it is millions of years away, but even if we survive the collapse of our sun, we will not survive forever. There was time before organisms experienced consciousness, and there will be time after. And if the inevitability of human oblivion worries you, I encourage you to ignore it. God knows that’s what everyone else does. ~ John Green can you think of other, non-harm related, possible objections as to why people's personal autonomy shouldn't be violated ? yeah, i thought about it immediately after posting my reply that the reason we treasure autonomy is because more often than not its violation leads to harm to the person whose autonomy got transgressed. sometimes, even if you forcibly improve somebody's condition they will be displeased because they were not consuled with. however, if we're talking about hypotherically painless death that no one notices - including the one who dies - there is nobody to regret the loss of anything. you can't possibly deprive someone who doesn't exist. Believe me, I often find myself on the brink of adopting it. yeah well lets create a new FB group then 'on the brink of nihilism' |
|
27-04-2014 what are your thoughts concerning,is there a metaphysical reason for suffering? is suffering pointless and without meaning or significance? what is the essential nature of the problem of suffering? and what are some methods to combat the problem of suffering? what is your essential philosophy or your fundamental principles of your thinking? please reply in depth and clarity. thanks for your time. |
[ link ] |
27-04-2014
"please reply in depth and clarity" haha))) i have written a lot about suffering on this blog so i'd rather reply in short here. the reason for suffering is this existence. it affects all sentient beings on earth, not just humans. satisfaction has to be earned, but discomfort will come naturally if one stays idle. hunger, thirst, feeling of cold - this is all pre-programmed in us. we are need machines that have to be always running away from discomfort towards some 'cures' for our ailments. this is a fact of life. now the meaning is a human category, we'd like there to be some but there is no evidence of there being some meaning other than that we manufacture ourselves. in short again, we can not get rid of suffering, we can only try and mitigate it. but my essential philosophy is that humans should stop producing offsprings into the world where they will inevtably suffer and die. that philosophy is called 'antinatalism'. |
|
27-04-2014 quote:
well, in BNHB, prof. benatar has a chapter in which he reviews the debate about this very issue (while more or less declaring himself to be agnostic about who's right): on the one hand there are the Epicurians, who say that death can never be bad for those who are dead, and on the other hand, there are those who claim that death can indeed deprive one of the pleasurable experiences that he would experience had he not been dead. the Epicurian position points to the inability of their opponents to date the time in which death harms the person: surely a person cannot be harmed while already dead, because by that time he no longer exists. and if we're talking about the ante-mortem person, than that would entail the absurd claim of backward causation; a future event causing a past event. the "death deprives" school responds to this challenge by offering the following analogy (and I'm half paraphrasing half quoting here): "if the world should be blasted to smithereens during the next presidency, this still wouldn't change the fact that even during the current's president term, he is the penultimate president of the united states. similarly, one's later death makes it true that even now one is doomed not to live longer than one will. just as there is no backward causation in the case of the penultimate president, so there is no backward causation in a death that harms one all along". I have to say that I find the "death deprives" response to be quite a "red herring". the analogy is not relevant to the question of when the supposed harm takes place, and so I'm still convinced that the epicurian position is yet to have met a worthy challenge. quote:
exactly, which once again proves my point that by nulliyfing the harm variable, every moral obstacle which pro-mortalism raises can be easily overcome.I'm not trying to be cocky or anything, I'm just saying that, so far, I can't see any possible worthy counter-argument to it. quote:
oh, mr. human oblivion... I have such a crush on you |
[ link ] |
30-04-2014
well, in BNHB, prof. benatar has a chapter in which he reviews the debate about this very issue (while more or less declaring himself to be agnostic about who's right) I must have forgotten it then, read this book about 3 years ago. Agnostic? I like that, get's one of the hook exactly, which once again proves my point that by nulliyfing the harm variable, every moral obstacle which pro-mortalism raises can be easily overcome. Yeah well it's even more policially incorrect than antinatalism so that is the main obstacle perhaps. I also see no reasons against pro-mortalism but I'll just keep my mind open and see if anybody smarter than me have come up with something Let me throw a quote though Thus, we impute to it the tortures of the last illness; and that is not right. Illnesses have nothing in common with that which ends them. They form part of life and not of death. We easily forget the most cruel sufferings that restore us to health; and the first sun of convalescence destroys the most unbearable memories of the chamber of pain. But let death come; and at once we overwhelm it with all the evil done before it. Not a tear but is remembered and used as a reproach, not a cry of pain but becomes a cry of accusation. Death alone bears the weight of the errors of nature or the ignorance of science that have uselessly prolonged torments in whose name we curse death because it puts an end to them. (Maeterlinck, Maurice 'Death') |
|
21-05-2014 Mother Russia shall rise again, mother russia is powerful. Conforming to ridiculous resolutions under Boris Yeltsin was a catastrophe.Aaand Above ^ That's the mindset of Putin. Very outdated, trying to live out a fantasy of his is going to abuse Russia and the russians even more, looking for what? useless "glory" that never feeds anyone. And the russians in Crimea are abandoned by Putin's government and kinda screwed by Ukraine, why? cause they decided to turn their backs on Ukraine, thinking that Putin gives a shit about them. Pride isn't always about nationality goddammit. to Mitchell, Ukraine is just a name? like...seriously...google chernobyl victims & go to images, that'll help develop your photographic memory, & the most popular ferris wheel isn't in Disney, it's in Ukraine. My only fear is a different type of escalation, Also, all this is happening and the elections are days away. Also, there are some idiots, violent Ukrainians who had committed crimes against ukraine's pro-moscow clowns, this creates an excuse for an unwanted intervention. No, I wasn't thinking about submitting a hateful comment Irina, you d'yavol |
|
11-08-2015 Testing, testing... одне, два, трьох. |
|
03-01-2016 Hi irina i don't if follow British politics I wanted to know what your thoughts were on Jeremy corbny and e u |
[ link ] |
07-01-2016
Hi John, no I don't really, only what I accidentally pick up. From googling Jeremy Corbyn EU I see that it's about the debate on staying/leaving EU. There must pe a lot of nuances I'm not aware of, so I can't say whether I'm pro or against, besides, from my poor country it seems like such an unimportant question (to us), as we're nearing African standards of living. I'm more interested if the EU as such will live for much longer. This latest flood of refugees has been a major test. Still ongoing this crisis. I kind of like EU as a united entity but again, I don't live there, maybe some of its citizens are dissatisfied... |
Comments to Ask me anything (within reason, of course :)