quote
follow
|
18-06-2013 When we say "procreation is wrong," we mean "procreation is wrong," not "human procreation is wrong."People seem to be confused on that point and it seems the whole efilism thing was started to promote the end of animal procreation as well, as if that's not what antinatalism is already about. |
[ link ] |
18-06-2013
I'd like it to be so but it seems 'we' mean different things. Some think we can only decide for ourselves as species. They still like to use the term antinatalism, without qualifying it in any way. That's why efilism emerged. VHEMT are technically antinatalists, but they are humans-only antinatalists. Although Benatar and Shopenhauer wriote about non-human animal suffering as well, it is still thought that antinatalism only concerns humans. Is it so strange? We percieve animals as our slaves, and unless it's some animal rights or vegan movement it is understood that ethical concerns are applied to homo sapiens only. |
|
18-06-2013 As for Dawkins, for those of you who haven't seen my entry on Dawkins and his error:http://francoistremblay.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/one-shotting-richard-dawkins-or-the-major-contradiction-of-humanism/ |
[ link ] |
18-06-2013
Yeah, Dawkins did contradict himself, I know those quotes. Being lucky to be born in an indifferent universe with blind physical forces and selfish genes. You summarized it nicely in "According to Dawkins, we are lucky and hugely blessed to be part of a system which contains suffering beyond our ability to fathom; not only that, but one must surmise that we are also privileged by the fact that said suffering strikes in an incredible variety of forms which we all must escape, follows no rhyme or reason, and that we are ultimately incapable of eradicating it." |
|
18-06-2013 David Benatar also commented on Dawkins`s views:For example, noting how amazingly small the chance was that any one of us would come into existence, he marvels at how lucky each one of us is to have been born. He suggests that wasting even a second of our lives is a �callous insult to those unborn trillions who will never be offered life in the first place’. Elsewhere he says that we are lucky that we are going to die because most �people are never going to die because they are never going to be born’ (…)Coming into existence can only be a good fortune if the alternative would have been worse. Yet the alternative is not bad at all - indeed it is much better than existing. Although one would not have experienced the joys of life had one never come into existence, one would not then have been deprived of those goods - quite simply because one would not have existed. Optimists tend to forget just how much pain and suffering there is in the world. Professor Dawkins, for example, says that we �live on a planet that is all but perfect for our kind of life’, noting that it is neither too warm nor too cold, and that it contains both water and food. He is correct, of course, that our planet has the minimum conditions necessary to sustain life (at least for the moment). However, it is far from �all but perfect’. Most people, most of the time, are too hot or too cold - not too hot or too cold in order to live, but rather too hot or too cold for comfort. Natural disasters and infectious diseases kill millions. The planet is not to blame for all our ills, however. Our own bodies fail us, causing vast amounts of suffering. There are millions of victims of human evil. Even the luckier inhabitants of our planet suffer much discomfort, pain, anxiety, disappointment, fear, grief, death and much else. I´m a big fan of Dawkins but I obviously cannot agree with this cheery, optimistic view of things. |
|
19-06-2013 You know he's also kinda misogynistic, right? During Elevatorgate, he told Rebecca Watson that her complain was irrelevant because there are women in the third world who go through a lot more. That's like refusing to treat the flu or to acknowledge the existence of the flu because it's not as bad as a heart attack. |
[ link ] |
19-06-2013
I wouldn't call somebody a misogynist simply based on one comment he made. There is no hatred of women in that 'Dear Muslimah' comment of his, just a disagreement of what constitutes misogyny. Frankly, I think throwing the word around for no good reason turns it into an empty ad-hominem. If one criticizes MRAs for making a big deal out of minor or non-issues instead of fighting the real ones, that's not misandry. |
|
19-06-2013 Well, I am referring specifically to woman-hatred. I would think that trivializing someone getting harassed is pretty hateful. To claim that women in the West have no reason to be fearful of men, with one woman out of four raped, is unconscionable. |
[ link ] |
19-06-2013
Trivializing harassment would be, but that incident can hardly be compared to harassment. "It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive." It was a one-time couple lines interaction and was arguably just a stupid mistake on the guy's part to assume 3 in the morning in an elevator was the right time and place for his invitation. It was an inconsiderate thing to do, and the scare it produced wad arguably, unintentional. To cry harrasment, stalking and misogyny about cases like these is to diminish the real value of those words. |
|
19-06-2013 LOL @ calling Dawkins misogynistic.LOL @ thinking elevatorgate is something worth talking about. LOL @ defending Watson who is a science-denialist cunt. |
|
19-06-2013 LOL @ bernardo who calls a woman "cunt" for decrying woman-hating pseudo-science.LOL @ bernardo for trivializing harassment. LOL @ bernardo for being a fucking dick. |
|
21-06-2013 Feminist alert.Watsons is a cunt because she is a horrible person, not because she's a women. Cunt is just a word. What happened at elevatorgate doesn't even come close to resembling harassment. What are you going to talk about next ? Privilege ? |
|
21-06-2013 Also, and this is completely off topic but whatever, your views on morality are flabbergasting altought not uncommon. I might have to read that post again but essentially you discard morality because humans have a subjective experience. We are fallible, we make cognitive errors, the only thing we have is our own perspective therefor morality does not exist.Well, that kind of morality doesn't exist alright, and it's a good thing it doesn't. You equate morality with some sort of metaphysical truth which is profoundly nonsensical. As long as people keep making that error, morality will continue to elude them. |
|
21-06-2013 And lastly here's a great article on Watson's science denialism:http://www.skepticink.com/incredulous/2012/12/01/science-denialism-at-a-skeptic-conference/ It's a very long read but extremely worthy. |
|
21-06-2013 Yes, it is harassment, despite your adamant refusal to call a spade a spade, Bernardo. You must be one of those pea-brained MRAs who ignore anything that happens to anyone with a vagina. And no, I don't call myself a feminist. It is asinine for any man to call himself a feminist and is usually done for brownie points ("I'm a feminist! Now let me ignore women's opinions, but don't call me on it because I'm a feminist!").As for morality, I don't know if you're addressing me, but I have never "discarded morality because humans have a subjective experience." I can't even make sense of such a statement. I must conclude that you are retarded as well. |
|
21-06-2013 BTW, evolutionary psychology is not science, you dick. Stop confusing hateful ultra-conservative political rhetoric with actual empirical science. You are a fool. |
Comments to Non-human animals in captivity and in the wild