Options

Humanity Industry Humanism Humanitarianism and the Incurrence of a Cruelty Debt

1234568»

Posts

  • Options
    ProlegomenaProlegomena Frictionless Spinning The VoidRegistered User regular
    Sorry it seemed like you were saying that the existence or otherwise of an arbitrary future person doesn't matter given that they are "imaginary" at this particular moment.

  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    Sorry it seemed like you were saying that the existence or otherwise of an arbitrary future person doesn't matter given that they are "imaginary" at this particular moment.
    Yes, that is what I was saying, but how does exaggerating it beyond reason make sense? Anything looks ridiculous when you do that.

  • Options
    ShabootyShabooty Registered User regular
    Inquisitor wrote: »
    Lights, seen in the sky above the Arby’s.

    Not the glowing sign of Arby’s. Something higher, and beyond that. We know the difference. We’ve caught on to their game. We understand the “lights above Arby’s” game. Invaders from another world. Ladies and gentlemen, the future is here, and it’s about a hundred feet above the Arby’s.

    This reminds me that I love the first year of nightvale

  • Options
    ProlegomenaProlegomena Frictionless Spinning The VoidRegistered User regular
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    Sorry it seemed like you were saying that the existence or otherwise of an arbitrary future person doesn't matter given that they are "imaginary" at this particular moment.
    Yes, that is what I was saying, but how does exaggerating it beyond reason make sense? Anything looks ridiculous when you do that.
    If it's true of an arbitrary future person it generalises to all future people, that isn't an exaggeration.

    If you want to reject that you'd have to say you didn't mean an arbitrary person but that it's only true of SOME (specific class of) people that it doesn't matter if they exist. And that's a big call even when it comes to imaginary people.

    Got to add that this all depends on what view you take of the metaphysics of time, you could think that the future is as real as the present.

  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    Well ok, if every human decided they wanted to not have kids then no it wouldn't be a problem. If some megalomaniac used their doomsday device to render everyone sterile then yeah, that would be a problem. But the issue isn't imaginary people not existing, it's choice.

  • Options
    ProlegomenaProlegomena Frictionless Spinning The VoidRegistered User regular
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    Well ok, if every human decided they wanted to not have kids then no it wouldn't be a problem. If some megalomaniac used their doomsday device to render everyone sterile then yeah, that would be a problem. But the issue isn't imaginary people not existing, it's choice.

    Ok that's interesting.

    What is it about the choices of people who exist now that trumps the possibility of future people having a choice at all?

  • Options
    GvzbgulGvzbgul Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    Well ok, if every human decided they wanted to not have kids then no it wouldn't be a problem. If some megalomaniac used their doomsday device to render everyone sterile then yeah, that would be a problem. But the issue isn't imaginary people not existing, it's choice.

    Ok that's interesting.

    What is it about the choices of people who exist now that trumps the possibility of future people having a choice at all?
    Because the future people don't exist and never will in this scenario. You might as well ask why characters on a tv show don't get to vote in real life elections.

    edit- anyway, I'm up far too late and need to go to bed. G'night.

    Gvzbgul on
  • Options
    ProlegomenaProlegomena Frictionless Spinning The VoidRegistered User regular
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    Gvzbgul wrote: »
    Well ok, if every human decided they wanted to not have kids then no it wouldn't be a problem. If some megalomaniac used their doomsday device to render everyone sterile then yeah, that would be a problem. But the issue isn't imaginary people not existing, it's choice.

    Ok that's interesting.

    What is it about the choices of people who exist now that trumps the possibility of future people having a choice at all?
    Because the future people don't exist and never will in this scenario. You might as well ask why characters on a tv show don't get to vote in real life elections.

    edit- anyway, I'm up far too late and need to go to bed. G'night.

    Goodnight.

    I'll leave why we can't equate the future with fictional TV shows as an exercise for the reader.

  • Options
    Romanian My EscutcheonRomanian My Escutcheon Two of Forks Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Racists and the likes give eugenics a bad rep.

    You know, up until this point, I thought you were self-deluded.

    Now I'm starting to think you might just be a bad person.

    Romanian My Escutcheon on
    [IMG][/img]
  • Options
    -Tal-Tal Registered User regular
    what if the state forcibly sent us to sleep at 10pm every night

    PNk1Ml4.png
  • Options
    Romanian My EscutcheonRomanian My Escutcheon Two of Forks Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    what if the state forcibly sent us to sleep at 10pm every night

    I'll go to bed when I want to, MOM.

    [IMG][/img]
  • Options
    LalaboxLalabox Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    What if we were the real state all along

    Lalabox on
  • Options
    FANTOMASFANTOMAS Flan ArgentavisRegistered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    what if the state forcibly sent us to sleep at 10pm every night

    There would be a massive increase in the rates of masturbation, probably helping ease the superpopulation problem, and thus, saving the human race from the BranPocalypse.

    Yes, with a quick verbal "boom." You take a man's peko, you deny him his dab, all that is left is to rise up and tear down the walls of Jericho with a ".....not!" -TexiKen
  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    "The survival of the species" is some specious shit.

  • Options
    BranniganSeppBranniganSepp Swiss Burrito Enthusiast PSN: ExMaloBonumRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    -Tal wrote: »
    Persons born short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback are valuable and contribute to the world, and nobody has a right to deny their existence except the person who has to carry them inside their body.

    I don't deny the value of existing short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback individuals, I simply state that if we can provide future generations with better genes, that we should. I'd even go so far, that as a self-aware species, it is a must. It's the responsible thing to do, when we have sufficient genetics competence to do so.

    Imagine Hilter wouldn't have been genocidal if he didn't have a micropenis. If at the time of Hitler's conception medicine would have been able to screen for and eliminate either the micropenis trait in his genes, or simply cast fetus Hitler aside, millions would have lived. An era of hell of Earth might not have happend at all, or hell would at least have burned a little less brightly. All that suffering, just because you let Hitler be born with a below average sized penis.

    What does the value of living people have to do with us as a species breeding with all the due care and competence we've acquired? Nothing. It's irrational and emotional to not breed with the utmost care and competence, just because all people, even the genetically challenged ones, are of value. Or do you really believe that a blind man wishes blindness on his offspring? In the unlikely event that he does, do you really think we should allow it? Or should we protect the unborn person from being strickend with blindness. As a self-aware species, isn't it our responsibilty and burden to protect the unborn from the irresponsibility of their would be creators?

    BranniganSepp on
  • Options
    AbracadanielAbracadaniel Registered User regular
    Oh good we got to Hitler

    rp7ogqq0p0r0.jpeg

  • Options
    DaypigeonDaypigeon Registered User regular
    -Tal wrote: »
    Persons born short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback are valuable and contribute to the world, and nobody has a right to deny their existence except the person who has to carry them inside their body.

    I don't deny the value of existing short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback individuals, I simply state that if we can provide future generations with better genes, that we should. I'd even go so far, that as a self-aware species, it is a must. It's the responsible thing to do, when we have sufficient genetics competence to do so.

    Imagine Hilter wouldn't have been genocidal if he didn't have a micropenis. If at the time of Hitler's conception medicine would have been able to screen for and eliminate either the micropenis trait in his genes, or simply cast fetus Hitler aside, millions would have lived, that instead died. An era of hell of Earth might not have happend, or hell would at least have burned a little less brightly.

    What does the value of living people have to do with us as a species breeding with all the due care and competence in the future? Nothing. It's irrational and emotional to not breed with the utmost care, and to the best of our technical capabilities, because people with worse natures are of value. Or do you really believe that a blind man wishes blindness on his offspring. And if he does, do you really think we should allow it? Or should we protect the person that would be born blind from the irresponsibility of their would be creator?

    you gonna show any actual link between physical abnormality and genocidal tendencies or just gonna assume it?

    These leading hypotheticals are pretty gross, buddy

  • Options
    PLAPLA The process.Registered User regular
    edited February 2016
    We have to make sure that Huntington's disease is passed on. For the greatergoodjusticespecieshuman humanspecies surviveviviralt survivehumansy future.

    PLA on
  • Options
    BranniganSeppBranniganSepp Swiss Burrito Enthusiast PSN: ExMaloBonumRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    Daypigeon wrote: »
    -Tal wrote: »
    Persons born short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback are valuable and contribute to the world, and nobody has a right to deny their existence except the person who has to carry them inside their body.

    I don't deny the value of existing short-sighted or cancer-prone or low-intelligence or hobbled and hunchback individuals, I simply state that if we can provide future generations with better genes, that we should. I'd even go so far, that as a self-aware species, it is a must. It's the responsible thing to do, when we have sufficient genetics competence to do so.

    Imagine Hilter wouldn't have been genocidal if he didn't have a micropenis. If at the time of Hitler's conception medicine would have been able to screen for and eliminate either the micropenis trait in his genes, or simply cast fetus Hitler aside, millions would have lived, that instead died. An era of hell of Earth might not have happend, or hell would at least have burned a little less brightly.

    What does the value of living people have to do with us as a species breeding with all the due care and competence in the future? Nothing. It's irrational and emotional to not breed with the utmost care, and to the best of our technical capabilities, because people with worse natures are of value. Or do you really believe that a blind man wishes blindness on his offspring. And if he does, do you really think we should allow it? Or should we protect the person that would be born blind from the irresponsibility of their would be creator?

    you gonna show any actual link between physical abnormality and genocidal tendencies or just gonna assume it?

    These leading hypotheticals are pretty gross, buddy

    It definitely can be a trigger for insanity. Like anything can be a trigger. Great beauty and physical prowess can be a trigger for insanity. I'm not for abolishing everything that poses a potential risk, but if the cost is that an unborn person might be born without a micropenis, I'm all for it. Why? Because that person would be better off regardless.

    The unborn cannot decide for themselves. We have to decide for them. As a species, not as individuals.

    BranniganSepp on
  • Options
    Munkus BeaverMunkus Beaver You don't have to attend every argument you are invited to. Philosophy: Stoicism. Politics: Democratic SocialistRegistered User, ClubPA regular
    Diarrhoeal is not a fucking word.

    It's called Dysentery.

    Citations are a fucking mess.

    Speculation without providing the proof to the hypothesis...

    F-

    See Dr. Munkus after class. You're going to have to repeat bullshit 101.

    Humor can be dissected as a frog can, but dies in the process.
  • Options
    BranniganSeppBranniganSepp Swiss Burrito Enthusiast PSN: ExMaloBonumRegistered User regular
    edited February 2016
    BranniganSepp was warned for this.
    What if two persons suffering from down syndrom want to procreate? Should or shouldn't we allow it? Normally, we do not allow it - just like we don't allow incest. Why? Because it's detrimental to us as a species. That's eugenics too. Eugenics is the responsible thing to do, and we should do a much better job at it. We should do as good a job at eugenics as is technically possible, which clearly is a moving target. Thanks, science!

    BranniganSepp on
  • Options
    TubeTube Registered User admin
    You're a fucking idiot.

    Geth, close the thread.

  • Options
    GethGeth Legion Perseus VeilRegistered User, Moderator, Penny Arcade Staff, Vanilla Staff vanilla
    Affirmative Tube. Closing thread...

This discussion has been closed.