|
Josef bugman posted:I would disagree, only personally mark you. Nothing "just is" everything done or currently doing needs to be justified in some way. If you claim that "oh morality doesn't apply to X activity" then you may as well give up on moral reasoning as a whole. Are you talking about the question "is it moral for me to reproduce?" or "is it moral to reproduce?". The first one is a very long discussion humanity has been having forever. The second one is psudo-intellectual nonsense because we have no choice about it and arguing otherwise is like demanding the tide move out. We can make individual decisions, we have no control over a species need to reproduce.
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 18:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Are you talking about the question "is it moral for me to reproduce?" or "is it moral to reproduce?". The first one is a very long discussion humanity has been having forever. The second one is psudo-intellectual nonsense because we have no choice about it and arguing otherwise is like demanding the tide move out. We can make individual decisions, we have no control over a species need to reproduce. He's arguing for moral relativism, he just doesn't seem to realize it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 18:14
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Are you talking about the question "is it moral for me to reproduce?" or "is it moral to reproduce?". The first one is a very long discussion humanity has been having forever. The second one is psudo-intellectual nonsense because we have no choice about it and arguing otherwise is like demanding the tide move out. We can make individual decisions, we have no control over a species need to reproduce. The former as opposed to the later, but the later is still interesting. Why do you think it is pseudo-intellectual though, and how can you tell the difference between that and truly intellectual? Can't most things be reduced down to individual questions to individual people? Beelzebufo posted:He's arguing for moral relativism, he just doesn't seem to realize it. I mean I am aware that it is one of the options, but I am also aware that I am not the sharpest knife in the drawer and that I can be wrong. Badly wrong, in a lot of cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 18:28
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:The former as opposed to the later, but the later is still interesting. Why do you think it is pseudo-intellectual though, and how can you tell the difference between that and truly intellectual? Can't most things be reduced down to individual questions to individual people? But also because again, I think the main question is rediculous on it's face. If life exists it is going to reproduce. No one has any control over this. Humans, as a generalization, are born with the ability to reproduce and the natural urge to and that's not going away. It's closer to rule of the universe. You can't moralize those. Which all brings me back to the fact that you can talk about the morality about how and when you reproduce but that you can't apply morality to the act of reproducing itself.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 18:49
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:It's also all still psudo-intellectual nonsense too because we're trying to moralize reproduction, something that is necessary to life, while also barely defining what moral or morality means here. It seems to just be a vague "suffering is bad" so no one should have kids because they might suffer. But that's not very well defined and really doesn't say anything about the morality of having a child. Honestly it's almost narcissistic to say that if you have a child you then hold a responsibility for any and all suffering that person ever experiences. What an outsized ego to think you have any control over the flow of time or the random happenstance that makes up life. I personally hold my parents responsible for all the suffering I've had to endure and continue to endure, yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 18:50
|
|
|
Depression, doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. Of course it doesn't make you right either! Life exists, but it doesn't follow that it will reproduce unless it wishes to. It's not a fundamental law like gravity, but it is a personal or societal law I will agree on that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 19:08
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Depression, doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. Of course it doesn't make you right either! Life exists, but it doesn't follow that it will reproduce unless it wishes to. It's not a fundamental law like gravity, but it is a personal or societal law I will agree on that. Reproduction is part of the defining premises for what life is. If it doesn’t reproduce it isn’t life. Individual parts of it might not reproduce, but reproduction is a necessary condition for life.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Reproduction is part of the defining premises for what life is. If it doesn’t reproduce it isn’t life. Individual parts of it might not reproduce, but reproduction is a necessary condition for life. How do those two bits match up?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 19:18
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Depression, doesn't necessarily mean that you are wrong. Of course it doesn't make you right either! Life exists, but it doesn't follow that it will reproduce unless it wishes to. It's not a fundamental law like gravity, but it is a personal or societal law I will agree on that. You're missing it. Personal and societal are human things. Reproduction is universal to all life. Life needs to reproduce. If you want to discuss the personal and societal factors that go into human reproduction you can but that's all about how we reproduce. That's not about the morality of reproduction itself. The opening of this thread is about the morality of reproduction itself which is very silly.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 19:19
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:How do those two bits match up? Well you see when two people get drunk and forget how much they loath each other... But now we’re talking about a particular instance of reproduction, not the ongoing reproduction of the species as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 19:21
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:You're missing it. Personal and societal are human things. Reproduction is universal to all life. Life needs to reproduce. If you want to discuss the personal and societal factors that go into human reproduction you can but that's all about how we reproduce. That's not about the morality of reproduction itself. The opening of this thread is about the morality of reproduction itself which is very silly. That doesn't neccesarily make it moral though, does it? Just because it's something that a lot of people do doesn't mean it is a moral idea, it is simply something that is. Again, do take your point. Bel Shazar posted:But now we’re talking about a particular instance of reproduction, not the ongoing reproduction of the species as a whole. But that's the thing, the ongoing ideal is made up of individual instances, isn't it? Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 19:25 on Apr 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 19:22
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:That doesn't neccesarily make it moral though, does it? Just because it's something that a lot of people do doesn't mean it is a moral idea, it is simply something that is. Again, do take your point. It means morality isn’t a valid consideration. It’s not a moral question. And no, it’s not that the species is made up of us or that life is made up of all the various forms of life. We are all part of it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 19:25
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:It means morality isn’t a valid consideration. It’s not a moral question. Everything is a moral question though, surely? All of our "selfhood" all of the ideas and questions and existence itself needs to be seen through a moral lens. We can't just opt out of certain bits because "oh well, you know" can we?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 19:29
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Everything is a moral question though, surely? All of our "selfhood" all of the ideas and questions and existence itself needs to be seen through a moral lens. We can't just opt out of certain bits because "oh well, you know" can we? A moral filter is but one of the many heuristics we use to navigate the world. We can opt out of any moral imperative if we choose... the benefit of a complex prefrontal cortex.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 19:37
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:A moral filter is but one of the many heuristics we use to navigate the world. We can opt out of any moral imperative if we choose... the benefit of a complex prefrontal cortex. But, at least according to how Beelzebufo reasons we can't just "opt out" of moral reasoning. The moral imperitive matters more than the view of our own interior view of the world. Or, to be fair it "should" matter more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 20:11
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:But, at least according to how Beelzebufo reasons we can't just "opt out" of moral reasoning. The moral imperitive matters more than the view of our own interior view of the world. Or, to be fair it "should" matter more. You can if you're a moral relativist, which is what you are arguing for. Your arguments are commiting you to a moral relativist stance, which is that morality is not a subject that can be generally reasoned and explored, but is dependent on the individual. That's a valid position, but it's not the absense of a position, and it's also not the position Owlfancier was arguing. To loop back to your Jain example, under moral relativism, you can say that it works for them, and you can't judge. But you could also interogate why you think Jainism is a correct moral path, the correct moral path, or not the correct moral path, by looking at their tenets and saying whether or not they agree with the moral reasoning you're using. Moral reasoning doesn't have to be deontological, and there is absolutely room for morality neutral actions. That is in fact my entire argument, that only individual context matters to reproduction, and that you cannot declare it as broadly a "good" or "bad" thing. It just is, and your personal situation determines the rightness or wrongness of it. Though I think you have a somewhat superficial understanding of Jainism, it's a complex religion that also has for instance, a somewhat explicit hierarchy of the genders in one of its major sects, which argues that women can't achieve liberation/enlightenment without being reborn as men first. Notably, that's also the sect that is the one that goes naked and tries to affect the world the least. The other makes a lot more compromises, including the inclusion of women under their monastic path. It actually sort of pararllels some of the more hardcore Christian sects that view women as inherently impure. I don't think when trying to understand (or judge) a set of tenets, religious or otherwise, you should just pick and choose the good sounding ones, because a lot of this stuff evolves together, and realizing the way it originates out of or creates other social and moral structures tells you a lot. Beelzebufo fucked around with this message at 20:41 on Apr 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 20:14
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:You can if you're a moral relativist, which is what you are arguing for. Your arguments are commiting you to a moral relativist stance, which is that morality is not a subject that can be generally reasoned and explored, but is dependent on the individual. That's a valid position, but it's not the absense of a position, and it's also not the position Owlfancier was arguing. Well what would the absence of a position be? I'm also worried about holding a moral relativist stance as it seems to bleed very easily into "being a shithead" sort of stance. [unserious ] I don't like holding views in case I am wrong [/unserious] Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Apr 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 20:26
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:Well what would the absence of a position be? I'm also worried about holding a moral relativist stance as it seems to bleed very easily into "being a shithead" sort of stance. There's not such thing beyond not participating in the debate at all. Even a totally nihilists "morality is irrelevant" stance is a position.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 20:28
|
|
|
Beelzebufo posted:There's not such thing beyond not participating in the debate at all. Even a totally nihilists "morality is irrelevant" stance is a position. I'd like to be able to not participate, since, in a lot of ways, you might hurt people if you mess up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 20:34
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:I'd like to be able to not participate, since, in a lot of ways, you might hurt people if you mess up. Honestly if this isnt just you doing a bit, have you considered therapy because your posting in this thread has several concerning themes in it wrt depression/anxiety
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
CountryMatters posted:Honestly if this isnt just you doing a bit, have you considered therapy because your posting in this thread has several concerning themes in it wrt depression/anxiety Hahaha, way ahead of you. It's just part of who I am, it's why I try to be as kind as possible to everyone. We never know what folks are going through and all that! Sometimes how we are is just "broken" when compared to other people. And that can be okay too. Josef bugman fucked around with this message at 20:49 on Apr 10, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 20:44
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:But, at least according to how Beelzebufo reasons we can't just "opt out" of moral reasoning. The moral imperitive matters more than the view of our own interior view of the world. Or, to be fair it "should" matter more. Nothing can matter more than my internal view of my own world. At best anything I care about is a facet of that internal view, not some abstract fact of reality. I utterly disagree with the claim that morality does or should matter more.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Nothing can matter more than my internal view of my own world. At best anything I care about is a facet of that internal view, not some abstract fact of reality. That seems a somewhat solipsistic way of viewing things, if you don't mind me saying so. Can I ask why?
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 21:04
|
|
|
Josef bugman posted:That seems a somewhat solipsistic way of viewing things, if you don't mind me saying so. Because every level of our sensory systems, cognitive systems, and memory recall systems are highly lossy systems that are, at best, optimized for our survival not for a hi fidelity recreation of reality. Whatever you think you are experiencing is a product of your own mind and that is all you can ever possibly have access to. You are wholly abstracted from reality. You can never get out of your own mind.
|
|
#
?
Apr 10, 2021 21:34
|
|
|
is every thread in dnd this loving bad or is it just bugman (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 19:12
|
|
|
Repaired Radio posted:is every thread in dnd this loving bad or is it just bugman Not sure but I think finding a way to reduce human population on earth to 2 billion would be beneficial until we can colonize other worlds and build a sustainable supply chain or terraform or O’Neil Cylinders or something and then control human development until we wanna build poo poo like Star Lifting and can traverse stars but that requires thinking beyond just the individual
|
|
#
?
Apr 11, 2021 23:53
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Not sure but I think finding a way to reduce human population on earth to 2 billion would be beneficial until we can colonize other worlds and build a sustainable supply chain or terraform or O’Neil Cylinders or something and then control human development until we wanna build poo poo like Star Lifting and can traverse stars but that requires thinking beyond just the individual Why do you think this would be helpful?
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 02:25
|
|
|
Gatts posted:Not sure but I think finding a way to reduce human population on earth to 2 billion would be beneficial until we can colonize other worlds and build a sustainable supply chain or terraform or O’Neil Cylinders or something and then control human development until we wanna build poo poo like Star Lifting and can traverse stars but that requires thinking beyond just the individual The population of the Earth could be 5 people and if 4 of them decided to screw over the last 1 the planet would still be horribly mismanaged and nothing would get done. Conversely we could feed house cloth and educate billions more people than live on the planet now with less ecological impact than we currently have if we were properly managed and cared enough to do it. The number of people on the planet is not and never has been the problem. It's the quality of people on the planet. Population control doesn't fix that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 11:49
|
|
|
Ironically the one thing that will never die off is Malthusian nonsense.
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 12:22
|
|
|
Mods please rename this thread: "Post your super villain plan here"
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 13:43
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:Mods please rename this thread: "Post your super villain plan here" It could be entertaining
|
|
#
?
Apr 12, 2021 14:49
|
|
|
https://mobile.twitter.com/nyt_diff/status/1381979529602797577
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 06:41
|
|
|
Gumball Gumption posted:No, there is no morality in reproduction. It just is. It's what living things do in the same way they eat, sleep, and poo poo. You can not apply morals to something a species has no real control over. If we're concerned about suffering than we can look to things we can control. You say that we can't apply morality to reproduction because it's a biological activity, but we apply morality biological activities all the time. Even what you eat and where you poo poo can in fact have religious or cultural prescriptions about what's right. In addition, you're implying that we don't have control over whether we have children, when unless you were raped, you have complete control over it. Now more than ever with birth control. Edit: I guess what you're saying makes sense if you're only talking about the binary question of whether we should reproduce at all. But not if it's just about how and when. Soul_ fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Apr 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:16
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:I personally hold my parents responsible for all the suffering I've had to endure and continue to endure, yes. I don't hold my parents responsible for all the suffering I've had to endure but definitely for some of it. they should've known just based on their own histories that one, their child would be mentally ill, and two, they wouldn't be able to reliably provide for it
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Soul_ posted:You say that we can't apply morality to reproduction because it's a biological activity, but we apply morality biological activities all the time. Even what you eat and where you poo poo can in fact have religious or cultural prescriptions about what's right. In addition, you're implying that we don't have control over whether we have children, when unless you were raped, you have complete control over it. Now more than ever with birth control. that’s moralizing how and where someone eats and shits. that’s very different from saying the very act of eating and making GBS threads is morally wrong which is what I think the op was originally getting at many religions already moralize reproduction in certain circumstances but few religions tell you to never breed ever
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 18:43
|
|
|
Soul_ posted:Edit: I guess what you're saying makes sense if you're only talking about the binary question of whether we should reproduce at all. But not if it's just about how and when. Spot on... AN act of reproduction can have a moral aspect to it. THE act of reproduction doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 19:26
|
|
|
Strawberry Pyramid posted:I personally hold my parents responsible for all the suffering I've had to endure and continue to endure, yes. I can't tell who's serious and who's shitposting anymore in this thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 21:24
|
|
|
Shitposting isn't real, it's something terrible people say they do to avoid therapy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2021 22:19
|
|
|
"I never ASKED to be BORN, DAD", the thread
|
|
#
?
Apr 16, 2021 10:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 21:12 |
|
|
https://twitter.com/AP/status/1389800020409561089 I will never understand natalist pearl clutching. If people don't want to ruin the rest of their lives by creating ungrateful little parasites, who are we to say that's wrong?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2021 09:11
|
|