BadenOctober 27, 2022 at 11:287900 views98 comments
This discussion was created with comments split from The Shoutbox
Comments (98)
universenessOctober 26, 2022 at 08:54#7516900 likes
Progressive and compassionate humans (which are most humans) will ever strive to, and continue to succeed in, improving the human experience of 'the world,' by removing/diluting that which the majority of humans have judged to be 'horrendous/nasty experiences.'
Any manipulations of the problem of human suffering that have the goal of championing the anti-life cause are bogus and is based on nothing more than the proponent's inability to live life as anything other than a curse.
The OP has been fully debunked despite the continuing protestations of its author, that it has not even been addressed. Let the fool on the hill continue to shout. At least some on TPF, find it entertaining, in the sense of laughing at the freak show. Time to move on to other threads. Perhaps the moderators can merge these antinatalist threads once more into a single anti-life thread.
universenessOctober 26, 2022 at 19:24#7517850 likes
There have been times on the forum when there were three threads on free will or consciousness going at the same time. Last week there were two threads discussing whether quantum mechanics undermines the idea of reality. The moderators have shown no particular interest in cutting out the clutter by consolidating threads.
Except with discussions they have classified as "Life Sucks" threads. @Mikie jammed five of @schopenhauer1's "Series in Pessimism" discussions in to the "Life Sucks" one. I think I'm pretty much the most happy happy joy joy poster on the forum, so I often don't have much patience with anti-natalism and other themes I consider nihilistic, but that's beside the point. Schopenhauer1 generally has well thought out OPs and well argued points. He won't listen to me when I tell him we live in the best of all possible worlds, but, hey, nobody else listens to me either.
There is as much nuance and depth in pessimistic philosophy as there is in free will or consciousness, at least as they manifest here on the forum. So, moderators - @Jamal, @Baden, be fair. Maybe it was reasonable to consolidate all Schopenhauer1's threads into a single Series in Pessimism, I don't know, but chucking it into the Life Sucks dumpster just kills the whole thing.
Perhaps the moderators can merge these antinatalist threads once more into a single anti-life thread.
Hell no, that would cause way to much of a stink. All that shit in one place.
schopenhauer1October 27, 2022 at 00:54#7518520 likes
Reply to T Clark
Thank you for sticking up for my threads, T Clark! I appreciate your defense and kind words regarding my posts. I don't think that was a great way to moderate my threads either. Hopefully @Jamal and @Baden will reconsider or reorganize them. Pessimism, even if disliked by many, has a place for discussion and should have a seat at the table as much as threads on consciousness and science.
schopenhauer1October 27, 2022 at 01:22#7518580 likes
I think it's a false dilemma that we ought to only fix the situation for those that exist already or be parents to new beings as they have the potential to help aid the problems in society rather than contribute to them. It is up to parents how to raise them with that in mind. Some parents raise outstanding citizens whilst others not so much. For whatever reasons they may be.
I am not saying that it's either or with parents or helping those who already exist. Rather, in a world that is brutal to the Bobs.. that may be structured to be so brutal because Larrys are valued.. Perhaps it is not a world start for others because of this structural negative element. As you say, people fall through the cracks. But why is it good to start the treadmill for yet another person? Because one likes playing the role of parent seems not comparable for starting a game that someone else has to play and may be quite unpleasant for them. Not everyone kills themselves, but just because not everyone kills themselves, doesn't mean structural negatives aren't a thing. And suicide does exist for some. And surely, you don't even need suicide to know life itself will just deal deadly blows, and if not deadly blows, quite fiercely negative ones.
There is always an overcoming to this game.. Overcoming ones shortcomings, other people's games to dodge, and life's survival itself. Yet, none of this has to be started for anyone.
Axe to grind much? Whispering in his ear like wormtongue over here? Maybe not, being magnanimous to your interlocutor isn't your thing. Rather, being what? supercilious you call it? is your way.
How the blood hell is this anything to do with 'life sucks'? Clearly Mickie (a.k.a Xtrix) - who moved this here - thinks that any argument for antinatalism, or that has antinatalist implications, is therefore a 'life sucks' view. That is so ignorant and stupid it beggars belief.
It's as dumb as thinking that as some utilitarians argue for vegetarianism, any argument for vegetarianism is therefore a defence of utilitarianism (so, merge any argument for vegetarianism with utilitarianism, despite the fact there are all manner of non-utilitarian arguments for it).
It's as dumb as thinking that as some Nazis were vegatarians, any argument for vegetarianism is therefore an argument for Nazism.
Or as thick as thinking that as some moral realists are divine command theorists, any argument for moral realism is an argument for God.
And so on.
Life sucks and antinatalism are not equivalent and only a bloody idiot thinks otherwise (so, you know, virtually everyone here). It's called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. If life sucks, that implies antinatalism. But it doesn't follow that an argument that implies antinatalism implies life sucks. That's called being stupid.
No premise in the argument i made - which wasn't even an argument for antinatalism, but for a disjunctive conclusion: either antinatalism is true or there is no problem of evil - expressed the view that life sucks.
Most arguments for antinatalism - including what is currently the most famou (Benatar's axiological asymmetry) - are NOT life sucks views. Benatar's axiological asymmetry argument is not a life sucks view. It has no 'life sucks' premise. Other asymmetry arguments aren't life sucks views. The consent argument is not a life sucks view. The Rawlsian argument is not a life sucks view. And so on and so on.
There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications.
schopenhauer1October 27, 2022 at 02:24#7518710 likes
There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications.
Seems to be the case. Not a balanced moderation. They think simply even "tolerating" AN threads is too much. One would think openness to differing views would be of most importance in a philosophy forum.
I was certain of that. My message was to you and @Baden, not to him. It's rotten and unfair and it's bad philosophy. Prejudice and censorship against positions you don't care for.
First, it's not just antinatalism: we do try to merge discussions on the same topics if they're happening simultaneously, or if they're asking the same questions or making the same points.
Second, the site guidelines specify that evangelists are not welcome on TPF. There is some leeway there, because some members of an evangelistic bent have been around a long time and are polite and thoughtful despite having only one interest.
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 08:56#7519030 likes
Hell no, that would cause way to much of a stink. All that shit in one place.
But at least, it's all in one place, and you can avoid the smell altogether, if you don't want to help combat it. But if it's allowed to be spread all over the place, then that smell is going to be wherever you go!
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 09:03#7519040 likes
Wasn't Banno, was me. I sent a PM asking about the TPF policy to keep all anti-life threads within one thread. Seems they agreed that was their policy. You should be happy they are being level handed.
You can post all your pessimistic musings here, what's wrong with that?
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 09:20#7519060 likes
There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications.
Yes, there was. The philosophical justification is that your philosophy is that life sucks and you have various ways to camouflage that base viewpoint. You think you can fool everyone else that you are living a perfectly happy, joyous life, but despite this optimistic life you lead, YOU have personally analysed the data regarding human suffering in a purely pragmatic way and YOU have declared the irrefutable conclusion that it would be better if all lifeforms that can experience any form of suffering, should make itself extinct. You have dressed this up in conflated propositional logic clothing but your attempt to convince others that you are on sound logical grounds and all of philosophy would, should and MUST support you or else they just don't know any valid philosophy, is proving to be quite unsuccessful.
But as far as I can interpret TPF guidelines, the moderators decided to put all antinatalism discussions under this single thread 'Life Sucks'. I simply requested that they follow through on this policy.
javi2541997October 27, 2022 at 09:28#7519080 likes
Wasn't Banno, was me. I sent a PM asking about the TPF policy to keep all anti-life threads within one thread. Seems they agreed that was their policy. You should be
I never thought it would be you the architect of lump the threads together :eyes:
You can post all your pessimistic musings here, what's wrong with that?
I see what you mean but it could be negative because some users would not have motivation if their OP end up in a generic thread. For example: imagine you start an interesting thread about the UK elections and it ends up at "Brexit thread" or "Currently PM thread" etc...
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 10:00#7519160 likes
I never thought it would be you the architect of lump the threads together :eyes:
You words relay a sense that you are disappointed in me Javi. This bites a little, considering your recent compliment towards me in another thread. I hope your disappointment does not run too deep.
I see what you mean but it could be negative because some users would not have motivation if their OP end up in a generic thread. For example: imagine you start an interesting thread about the UK elections and it ends up at "Brexit thread" or "Currently PM thread" etc...
Not at all, I would be absolutely fine with that. Almost every discussion site on the internet uses generic titles/categories, including TPF. When you post a new thread, you are asked to choose one of the catergories from the drop down list TPF provides. This list is, of-course, finite so it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the moderators would do some 'defragging,' on the site and merge common threads under one title. Antinatalism is one topic and should be discussed under one title despite the attempts of some members to spread it all over the site by stealth, in an attempt to make it seem like a more dominant issue.
You words relay a sense that you are disappointed in me Javi. This bites a little, considering your recent compliment towards me in another thread. I hope your disappointment does not run too deep.
Nah, I am not disappointed at all. I am surprised because I consider you a normal/eclectic member in this site. I mean, I see you as a peaceful person not someone who wants to complain with the mods through PM.
Reply to universeness I understand the cause of lump anti-natalism together because there are a lot of them. But this could be a negative act towards the originality of some users. There are some members who like to debate about pessimism and it is ok. As much as I love to debate about Mishima or Japanese culture (for example) and it would be disappointing if my threads end up here because it would probably lost the nature or purpose of my debate.
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 10:54#7519210 likes
Nah, I am not disappointed at all. I am surprised because I consider you a normal/eclectic member in this site. I mean, I see you as a peaceful person not someone who wants to complain with the mods through PM.
I try to judge each situation wisely as each arises. If a thug in a pub, winds up me or they threaten someone in the company I am in. I have two choices. I can verbally or physically intervene myself with the thug or I can protest/report the situation to those who run the pub or phone the police.
Which option I choose will be down to my own thoughts about the situation in accordance with my own viewpoints/emotions/priorities/notions of the role of law and authority.
I am peaceful but not pacifist, when threat is in my face. I am not non-violent or non-confrontational.
I am eclectic in many ways, but I also have my 'main drivers.'
There are some members who like to debate about pessimism and it is ok.
I agree, if the discussion is about pessimism and its phenomena as a human mind-set but not if it's just being used to camouflage antinatalism and it was already stated as TPF policy that all antinatalism threads would be placed under the 'life sucks' thread. That's where the antinatalism podium exists, no matter how some members try to camouflage it. I for one support that policy.
I understand your concern, but to put this in context, @schopenhauer1 has started close to 200 discussions, all or almost all on the same broad topic, five of which were simultaneously running on the front page even after we specifically indicated the Life Sucks thread was the place for such. The forum is not supposed to be used as a platform for spreading any poster's particular ideology. That's what personal blogs are for and that's why we have the evangelism guideline. As @Jamal alluded, if it were not for @schopenhauer1's generally thoughtful and engaging manner, he would already have been banned.
javi2541997October 27, 2022 at 11:38#7519260 likes
I am peaceful but not pacifist, when threat is in my face. I am not non-violent or non-confrontational.I am eclectic in many ways, but I also have my 'main drivers.'
I see your point and I respect it and even agree with it. I don't recall having a serious discussion with you at all (furthermore, when we debated about the role of Spanish/British Empire in the world but that's fluffy political stuff... not personal disagreements)
That's what I was surprised because I don't remember you to get involved in discussions with other members. But now I see your point: it is good and practical to avoid conflict situations when the threat is approaching.
I agree, if the discussion is about pessimism and its phenomena as a human mind-set but not if it's just being used to camouflage antinatalism and it was already stated as TPF policy that all antinatalism threads would be placed under the 'life sucks' thread. That's where the antinatalism podium exists, no matter how some members try to camouflage it. I for one support that policy.
Wow this completely lost my mind! I promise these members created the threads on pessimism to specifically speak only about it. But it turned out to be a simple camouflage to still debating on antinatalism!
We are surrounded by ninjas :eyes:
There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications.
The motivation for all this wasn't philosophical or personal, it was moderation, i.e. to prevent @schopenhauer1 proliferating these discussions as part of what we saw as probable evangelism. Almost 200 threads by one poster on one issue was more than enough for us. The choice was to ban him or take some other measure. It's not antinatalism that's the central problem here, it's one posters use of it and his attempts to circumvent the limitations we're trying to put on him.
First, it's not just antinatalism: we do try to merge discussions on the same topics if they're happening simultaneously, or if they're asking the same questions or making the same points.
Perhaps that is the policy, but it certainly isn't the practice. As I noted in my first post on this subject, it is uncommon for moderators to consolidate threads, even in situations where it is getting silly.
The problem here is more monomania or monotony than evangelism.
I am not an antinatalist despite the grim prospects for generations following in a hot world. However, Shopenhauer1 has done a good job of elaborating the principle that is behind the decision of people to NOT bear children. But hot weather is just the latest pain. Before global warming there were equally bad prospects for suffering.
Maybe the erudite moderators could have come up with something a little more elegant than "life sucks". "Suck" is worn out; as an expression of dissatisfaction, it sucks.
We should have an "All Metaphysics' thread, an "All Leftist Bullshit" thread, etc.
Funny, I was about to respond to Baden, ironically, that now I have to worry about a "Metaphysics Sucks" thread where all my brilliant insights will go to die. I'm pretty sure your suggestion isn't ironic.
Gave my explanation that it was primarily about the poster, not the topic. That was ignored in favour of more complaints about suppression of the topic. That's a little annoying but no biggie. Carry on.
It's about 3 or 4 of them, mostly. But, I mean, what's the point? Like, you want to depress everybody? Read the news.
You suffer so much in life? Then there is a way out, nobody is stopping you.
Jeez, it's hard to think of a topic on the internet in which the serious reply "kill yourself" wouldn't be taken as a threat.
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 18:37#7520060 likes
Reply to Baden
third frame? 'How's your what? stapling? I googled it and got: Stapling means your existing super account automatically follows you when you change jobs.
???
It is, and I agree. I do think you are being sensible here, I've protested once or twice before, but you guys do pretty good work by and large, in my opinion.
Beyond a point, there are diminishing returns on this topic.
Stapling means your existing super account automatically follows you when you change jobs.
Sounds like the plot of a postmodern horror movie. :lol:
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 18:50#7520110 likes
Reply to Manuel
I can only wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists.
I personally find it one of the most ridiculous idea's a human has ever come up with.
But as @Baden has already stated, the moderators action was about the attempt to flood the main debate area with anti-life threads, or at least over-represent the topic of anti-life in the main debate area. It was not an action to prevent the topic itself being debated.
And it makes sense, because it is essentially the same thought presented in slightly different ways, which can go one forever.
And it is a very narrow topic too, not much to add once the arguments have been established.
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 19:05#7520150 likes
Reply to Baden
:lol: Spelling is not one of my strongest skills. I have no idea why my brain did not connect to stapling paper! Frame two is very clever but I now don't get frame 3 even more.
They have to get the vote out so they have to create pamphlets/flyers etc. So fish asks other fish "how's your stapling", other fish responds with 'I knew this would happen.'
The issue is around pessimism so ........
OH! I think the penny just dropped! is the message that expecting fish to staple is as ridiculous as expecting sentient lifeforms to vote for their own extinction!!!!!
Am I correct?
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 19:12#7520170 likes
Reply to Manuel
Could not agree with you more, then the proponents try to enhance the topic or try to defibrillate the topic, by conflating their irrational posits with propositional logic or some bizarre perceptions of some ideal, absolutely pure form of human morality when no such pure form exists.
universenessOctober 27, 2022 at 19:37#7520260 likes
Reply to DingoJones
He still has not confirmed that my analysis was correct!
Perhaps he is too busy creating even more enigmatic offerings with other strange (actually perfectly acceptable) words, my brain seems to have problems recognising, such as 'stapling' :scream:
Reply to Baden
There's a staple gun where I work that's huge and electric powered, and it makes a sound like a cannon going off when you press the lever. It makes me a little jittery, but then I remember what Kierkegaard said about the melancholy of knowing you're just another person, on another day, hearing the same cannon stapler that's been exploding over and over forever.
I can only wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists.
I personally find it one of the most ridiculous idea's a human has ever come up with.
I think for some people with mood issues and negative life experiences, it might make sense (in theory) never to have been born and to surmise that all lives are irrevocably marred by suffering and futility - the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses.
Reply to Baden I believe that is false. There is clearly no rational basis for merging my discussion with this one. My argument had no premise that asserted that life sucks. It didn't even have an antinatalist conclusion, but a disjunctive conclusion: either antinatalism is true, or there is no problem of evil.
So, philosophically it demonstrably makes no sense at all to merge my discussion with a 'life sucks' thread. They have nothing in common. It is as stupid as merging a thread on the problem of evil with 'life sucks'. Would you do that? Do you think someone who thinks there is a problem of evil for theism is someone who thinks 'life sucks'?
If someone on a thread starts making 'life sucks' claims, then it is also absurd to make that a basis for merging it with another thread, especially when the person whose thread it is is continuing to take part in a focussed discussion of the OP - an OP which makes no 'life sucks' claim.
Given the philosophical ineptness of thinking my thread was at home in a 'life sucks' thread it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the mods - or some of the mods here - have a bias against antinatalist threads, regardless of the particulars of the arguments, and so have a tendency to destroy any focussed discussion of them.
Reply to EricH Thanks, appreciated. It won't do anything, of course. Clearly they have decided that any argument for antinatalism is - must be - an argument that assumes life sucks. That is as ignorant and stupid as thinking that anyone who thinks there is a problem of evil for belief in God is also someone who thinks 'life sucks'. The best explanation is that there is a prejudice in operation.
I can distinguish at least 8 distinct arguments that have antinatalist implications. Only one of those is what's known as a 'miserabilist' case that assumes life here subjects its liver to more harms than benefits. One. One out of 8 arguments that I know of. Yet clearly were I to make any of those other 7 arguments, my thread would be merged with this one. Why? So as to close the debate down.
I have never made a life sucks argument for antinatalism. The closest I have made is a death-based argument, but even then I still assume that life here benefits its liver more than it harms them (the harms come after). Every single argument I have made for antinatalism has NOT been a life sucks one. Note a single one.
I think for some people with mood issues and negative life experiences, it might make sense (in theory) never to have been born and to surmise that all lives are irrevocably marred by suffering and futility - the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses.
You know that analyzing a person's motivation is not a legitimate criticism of a philosophical position.
I can only wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists.
I personally find it one of the most ridiculous idea's a human has ever come up with.
It's not much of an argument, but it is in response to anti-natalists position, not their psychological state.
If you are unable to change the world, then you ought to frustrate your desire to introduce new sentient life into it. Yes?
This was yet another antinatalist argument dressed up in different clothes from someone who posts almost nothing except antinatalist arguments. So it was merged with the life sucks thread. It doesnt mean the argument was that life sucks thats simply the name of the thread.
I even extended the courtesy of messaging both of the individuals affected by the merge. The conversation can continue either way. Mostly a housekeeping move. Not a great injustice, fairly straightforward.
it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses.
My sunglasses are brown-coloured and the world looks pretty warm and good through them. Maybe "shit-stained glasses" through which the world would look spotty and leprous would be more apt? :joke:
@schopenhauer1s threads that Ive encountered/participated in didnt have anything remotely close to life sucks as a premise. Therefore, I dont see how the title of the merged thread can be viewed as anything other than demeaning/insulting. I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like Antinatalist Arguments or some other benign title. Should pro-natalist threads be merged into a Life is Awesome! thread?
That said, when the author of any thread continually starts the same discussion from slightly different perspectives, it makes one question their intent. To me, once youve had the discussion, and its run its inevitable course theres no need to do it all over again. Its isnt likely to change anyones mind or accomplish much of anything. Also, I could see how newcomers to TPF could be led to believe that this is primarily an AN site, with half of the threads on the main page being dedicated to that topic. So something clearly had to be done. I just think titling the thread using negative language is asking for criticism and concerns of biases among the mods.
javi2541997October 28, 2022 at 04:49#7521210 likes
Therefore, I dont see how the title of the merged thread can be viewed as anything other than demeaning/insulting. I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like Antinatalist Arguments or some other benign title. Should pro-natalist threads be merged into a Life is Awesome! thread?
TPF could face a lawsuit if a family member who perhaps is mentally ill delves a little too deep into certain philosophies. It's like this other forum I like: "No suicide threads". Is it likely? Does it make much sense to implement procedure over? Has anything schopenhaur done or posted reasonably any more likely to produce such an outcome than a simple discussion regarding if life is or is not worth living? The answer to all of these things is "No" but a certain moderator said something I like that stuck with me: "It's one of those unfortunate little things the rules don't happen to care about".
I have yet to read a reply (note I have not read this whole thread in a focused mood) that seems to change the "200 threads on the same topic" dynamic. If that is true I mean.. what? What is the argument here? :lol:
No discussion is impacted. It's just in one thread. This isn't Times Square. The traffic footprint is low. Do we really have time for drama for drama's sake? Must be nice.
OK, so we changed the name to avoid the impression we are denigrating the topic. Which was never our intention. However, we will continue to expect the conversation to be limited to that thread until further notice. And if you wish to remain a member @schopenhauer1, please do not give us further reason to suspect you are evangelising.
universenessOctober 28, 2022 at 11:53#7521600 likes
the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses.
I would say this viewpoint would have a lot of support, especially if you ask people for a quick knee jerk response to a question like 'how's life for you?' just after they have watched news at 10 on the BBC.
WE ALL must take responsibility for such knee-jerk negative life viewpoints.
Here is one suggestion Tom. What if all news programs by law had to report in a more balanced way. The bad news and the good news, 50/50. Good news is rarely reported but is going on all over the planet every day.
Why was there not a news story such as 'The British Political system enables the removal of an incompetent prime minister within one month of their election!' I am not a fan of the current UK political system but the fact that it meant a Liz Truss approach would not survive scrutiny is good news!
Most people react rather than act. They are like little newborn birds with brain rather than mouth wide open hoping for some stimuli rather than food, to be fed to them. Apathy causes many to become like this when they are offered little hope. BUT there is plenty of hope out there. We are all responsible because we won't get out our armchairs and fight to change things. We all made this bed we live in, only we can wake out of our slumber and see who really runs everything. When we all agree who the enemy truly is, then we can smash them to smithereens, permanently!
This would remove a lot of the 'chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy,' you suggest is so currently prominent. Who has all the cream right now, all the advantages, control over all the Earth's resources Tom? Who? and how come?
universenessOctober 28, 2022 at 12:01#7521640 likes
I mean, what other reason is there to choose not to name it something generic like Antinatalist Arguments or some other benign title.
Good idea, change the 'Life sucks' thread into 'All antinatalism discussions here:'
Edit: I see I am playing catch up with @Baden again. Yeah, I know, read all the latest posts in a thread before responding to any of them. :blush:
Edit2: At least I can spell proper! He keeps typing evangelising when we all know its proper spellin is evanHELLising. Get a grip Irishman!
universenessOctober 28, 2022 at 12:19#7521670 likes
Reply to Baden
:rofl: Hey, wait a minute! 'Arguments FOR antinatalism,' is a wee bit too much of a swing towards supporting the topic rather than denigrating it. There are far more comments in that thread against than for. Much better to call it 'All antinatalism viewpoints here!' BALANCE!
I hold the view that people's professed beliefs often reflect personal context rather than logic.
Everything I know, think, feel, and believe reflects "personal context" rather than logic. No one comes to believe things because of logic. Logic does not generate knowledge or understanding. It can, and sometimes does, validate or invalidate beliefs. E.g. do you think @universeness's opposition to anti-natalism comes from logic? His baloney gestures to logic are just a cover to support his desire that ideas he doesn't agree with should be censored.
That's actually not true. People vary in how much they trust logic. Some can march, one logical step at a time, to amazing effect.
Deductive logic only operates on propositions. The propositions have to come from somewhere. If you follow a logical chain of propositions back to the beginning, you'll come to one that can't be generated by deductive logic.
Propositions can be generated by inductive logic. Following a standard scientific type process, you start with observations, use them to generate hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses against further observations. Logic of either type is not able to make the step from the original observation to hypothesis. That requires insight, intuition.
Everything I know, think, feel, and believe reflects "personal context" rather than logic. No one comes to believe things because of logic. Logic does not generate knowledge or understanding.
Yes. My mum used to say something like you can't reason someone out of a position that wasn't arrived at through reason. Is there much point in debate or dialogue if worldviews like pessimism are derived and held outside of reason? Some people plainly do change their positions, but I wonder to what extent this is driven by an internal process rather than exposure to argument. Probably off topic, right?
This would remove a lot of the 'chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy,' you suggest is so currently prominent.
I was referring to those who embrace pessimism and antinatalism with some dedication, not to general dissatisfaction with culture and politics. A whole different debate, I suspect.
Deductive logic only operates on propositions. The propositions have to come from somewhere. If you follow a logical chain of propositions back to the beginning, you'll come to one that can't be generated by deductive logic.
Sure, but much can be accomplished by using deductive reasoning on premises that are sufficiently verifiable. And so-called "hinge propositions" aren't usually a matter of personal taste. They emerge from your form: physically, psychologically, and culturally.
Propositions can be generated by inductive logic. Following a standard scientific type process, you start with observations, use them to generate hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses against further observations.
That's not inductive reasoning. Induction is like when you see the sun rise in the east every morning and conclude that the sun always rises in the east.
Perhaps we should start a thread on induction. It's a fascinating topic. :smile:
universenessOctober 29, 2022 at 07:38#7523630 likes
E.g. do you think universeness's opposition to anti-natalism comes from logic? His baloney gestures to logic are just a cover to support his desire that ideas he doesn't agree with should be censored.
You are just typing inaccurate trash about me TC. I seem to occupy much more space in your head than you do in mine. If you want to try to counter my arguments then do so directly, rather than this poor attempt by proxy. I think you should look again at the relationship individuals have between their beliefs and their application of logic. By doing so, you may eventually escape your dalliances and irrational defence of theists. Do the words in the offering below hold an important place in your heart TC?
That's not inductive reasoning. Induction is like when you see the sun rise in the east every morning and conclude that the sun always rises in the east.
OR, you might conclude that the sun does not rise at all, it is the Earth that turns.
universenessOctober 29, 2022 at 08:18#7523710 likes
Comments (98)
Any manipulations of the problem of human suffering that have the goal of championing the anti-life cause are bogus and is based on nothing more than the proponent's inability to live life as anything other than a curse.
The OP has been fully debunked despite the continuing protestations of its author, that it has not even been addressed. Let the fool on the hill continue to shout. At least some on TPF, find it entertaining, in the sense of laughing at the freak show. Time to move on to other threads. Perhaps the moderators can merge these antinatalist threads once more into a single anti-life thread.
:clap: :clap: :up:
Except with discussions they have classified as "Life Sucks" threads. @Mikie jammed five of @schopenhauer1's "Series in Pessimism" discussions in to the "Life Sucks" one. I think I'm pretty much the most happy happy joy joy poster on the forum, so I often don't have much patience with anti-natalism and other themes I consider nihilistic, but that's beside the point. Schopenhauer1 generally has well thought out OPs and well argued points. He won't listen to me when I tell him we live in the best of all possible worlds, but, hey, nobody else listens to me either.
There is as much nuance and depth in pessimistic philosophy as there is in free will or consciousness, at least as they manifest here on the forum. So, moderators - @Jamal, @Baden, be fair. Maybe it was reasonable to consolidate all Schopenhauer1's threads into a single Series in Pessimism, I don't know, but chucking it into the Life Sucks dumpster just kills the whole thing.
Hell no, that would cause way to much of a stink. All that shit in one place.
Thank you for sticking up for my threads, T Clark! I appreciate your defense and kind words regarding my posts. I don't think that was a great way to moderate my threads either. Hopefully @Jamal and @Baden will reconsider or reorganize them. Pessimism, even if disliked by many, has a place for discussion and should have a seat at the table as much as threads on consciousness and science.
I am not saying that it's either or with parents or helping those who already exist. Rather, in a world that is brutal to the Bobs.. that may be structured to be so brutal because Larrys are valued.. Perhaps it is not a world start for others because of this structural negative element. As you say, people fall through the cracks. But why is it good to start the treadmill for yet another person? Because one likes playing the role of parent seems not comparable for starting a game that someone else has to play and may be quite unpleasant for them. Not everyone kills themselves, but just because not everyone kills themselves, doesn't mean structural negatives aren't a thing. And suicide does exist for some. And surely, you don't even need suicide to know life itself will just deal deadly blows, and if not deadly blows, quite fiercely negative ones.
There is always an overcoming to this game.. Overcoming ones shortcomings, other people's games to dodge, and life's survival itself. Yet, none of this has to be started for anyone.
Am too.
Nice work, the mod who merg'd all the bumf.
Axe to grind much? Whispering in his ear like wormtongue over here? Maybe not, being magnanimous to your interlocutor isn't your thing. Rather, being what? supercilious you call it? is your way.
And I am doing so, as I have your whole-hearted support :wink:.
It's as dumb as thinking that as some utilitarians argue for vegetarianism, any argument for vegetarianism is therefore a defence of utilitarianism (so, merge any argument for vegetarianism with utilitarianism, despite the fact there are all manner of non-utilitarian arguments for it).
It's as dumb as thinking that as some Nazis were vegatarians, any argument for vegetarianism is therefore an argument for Nazism.
Or as thick as thinking that as some moral realists are divine command theorists, any argument for moral realism is an argument for God.
And so on.
Life sucks and antinatalism are not equivalent and only a bloody idiot thinks otherwise (so, you know, virtually everyone here). It's called the fallacy of affirming the consequent. If life sucks, that implies antinatalism. But it doesn't follow that an argument that implies antinatalism implies life sucks. That's called being stupid.
No premise in the argument i made - which wasn't even an argument for antinatalism, but for a disjunctive conclusion: either antinatalism is true or there is no problem of evil - expressed the view that life sucks.
Most arguments for antinatalism - including what is currently the most famou (Benatar's axiological asymmetry) - are NOT life sucks views. Benatar's axiological asymmetry argument is not a life sucks view. It has no 'life sucks' premise. Other asymmetry arguments aren't life sucks views. The consent argument is not a life sucks view. The Rawlsian argument is not a life sucks view. And so on and so on.
There is no philosophical justification for merging my thread with this one. The motivation is clearly just a brute dislike of philosophical discussion of antinatalism or any argument that might have antinatalist implications.
Yep, you make sense here.
Quoting Bartricks
Seems to be the case. Not a balanced moderation. They think simply even "tolerating" AN threads is too much. One would think openness to differing views would be of most importance in a philosophy forum.
Agree. I sent a request to Mickie that (if possible) this action be reversed.
I was certain of that. My message was to you and @Baden, not to him. It's rotten and unfair and it's bad philosophy. Prejudice and censorship against positions you don't care for.
First, it's not just antinatalism: we do try to merge discussions on the same topics if they're happening simultaneously, or if they're asking the same questions or making the same points.
Second, the site guidelines specify that evangelists are not welcome on TPF. There is some leeway there, because some members of an evangelistic bent have been around a long time and are polite and thoughtful despite having only one interest.
But at least, it's all in one place, and you can avoid the smell altogether, if you don't want to help combat it. But if it's allowed to be spread all over the place, then that smell is going to be wherever you go!
Wasn't Banno, was me. I sent a PM asking about the TPF policy to keep all anti-life threads within one thread. Seems they agreed that was their policy. You should be happy they are being level handed.
You can post all your pessimistic musings here, what's wrong with that?
Yes, there was. The philosophical justification is that your philosophy is that life sucks and you have various ways to camouflage that base viewpoint. You think you can fool everyone else that you are living a perfectly happy, joyous life, but despite this optimistic life you lead, YOU have personally analysed the data regarding human suffering in a purely pragmatic way and YOU have declared the irrefutable conclusion that it would be better if all lifeforms that can experience any form of suffering, should make itself extinct. You have dressed this up in conflated propositional logic clothing but your attempt to convince others that you are on sound logical grounds and all of philosophy would, should and MUST support you or else they just don't know any valid philosophy, is proving to be quite unsuccessful.
But as far as I can interpret TPF guidelines, the moderators decided to put all antinatalism discussions under this single thread 'Life Sucks'. I simply requested that they follow through on this policy.
I never thought it would be you the architect of lump the threads together :eyes:
Quoting universeness
I see what you mean but it could be negative because some users would not have motivation if their OP end up in a generic thread. For example: imagine you start an interesting thread about the UK elections and it ends up at "Brexit thread" or "Currently PM thread" etc...
You words relay a sense that you are disappointed in me Javi. This bites a little, considering your recent compliment towards me in another thread. I hope your disappointment does not run too deep.
Quoting javi2541997
Not at all, I would be absolutely fine with that. Almost every discussion site on the internet uses generic titles/categories, including TPF. When you post a new thread, you are asked to choose one of the catergories from the drop down list TPF provides. This list is, of-course, finite so it seems perfectly reasonable to me that the moderators would do some 'defragging,' on the site and merge common threads under one title. Antinatalism is one topic and should be discussed under one title despite the attempts of some members to spread it all over the site by stealth, in an attempt to make it seem like a more dominant issue.
I wanted to point that out because I don't want my delay on doing the merge myself to be the reason I'm saved from your criticism.
Nah, I am not disappointed at all. I am surprised because I consider you a normal/eclectic member in this site. I mean, I see you as a peaceful person not someone who wants to complain with the mods through PM.
I understand the cause of lump anti-natalism together because there are a lot of them. But this could be a negative act towards the originality of some users. There are some members who like to debate about pessimism and it is ok. As much as I love to debate about Mishima or Japanese culture (for example) and it would be disappointing if my threads end up here because it would probably lost the nature or purpose of my debate.
I try to judge each situation wisely as each arises. If a thug in a pub, winds up me or they threaten someone in the company I am in. I have two choices. I can verbally or physically intervene myself with the thug or I can protest/report the situation to those who run the pub or phone the police.
Which option I choose will be down to my own thoughts about the situation in accordance with my own viewpoints/emotions/priorities/notions of the role of law and authority.
I am peaceful but not pacifist, when threat is in my face. I am not non-violent or non-confrontational.
I am eclectic in many ways, but I also have my 'main drivers.'
Quoting javi2541997
I agree, if the discussion is about pessimism and its phenomena as a human mind-set but not if it's just being used to camouflage antinatalism and it was already stated as TPF policy that all antinatalism threads would be placed under the 'life sucks' thread. That's where the antinatalism podium exists, no matter how some members try to camouflage it. I for one support that policy.
I understand your concern, but to put this in context, @schopenhauer1 has started close to 200 discussions, all or almost all on the same broad topic, five of which were simultaneously running on the front page even after we specifically indicated the Life Sucks thread was the place for such. The forum is not supposed to be used as a platform for spreading any poster's particular ideology. That's what personal blogs are for and that's why we have the evangelism guideline. As @Jamal alluded, if it were not for @schopenhauer1's generally thoughtful and engaging manner, he would already have been banned.
I see your point and I respect it and even agree with it. I don't recall having a serious discussion with you at all (furthermore, when we debated about the role of Spanish/British Empire in the world but that's fluffy political stuff... not personal disagreements)
That's what I was surprised because I don't remember you to get involved in discussions with other members. But now I see your point: it is good and practical to avoid conflict situations when the threat is approaching.
Quoting universeness
Wow this completely lost my mind! I promise these members created the threads on pessimism to specifically speak only about it. But it turned out to be a simple camouflage to still debating on antinatalism!
We are surrounded by ninjas :eyes:
Do you really want to claim that you are a better bullshitter than Bartrix? :wink:
The motivation for all this wasn't philosophical or personal, it was moderation, i.e. to prevent @schopenhauer1 proliferating these discussions as part of what we saw as probable evangelism. Almost 200 threads by one poster on one issue was more than enough for us. The choice was to ban him or take some other measure. It's not antinatalism that's the central problem here, it's one posters use of it and his attempts to circumvent the limitations we're trying to put on him.
Perhaps that is the policy, but it certainly isn't the practice. As I noted in my first post on this subject, it is uncommon for moderators to consolidate threads, even in situations where it is getting silly.
Anyway, thanks for the response.
"Ideology" is another name for a philosophy you don't like.
I appreciate your response.
:up:
The problem here is more monomania or monotony than evangelism.
I am not an antinatalist despite the grim prospects for generations following in a hot world. However, Shopenhauer1 has done a good job of elaborating the principle that is behind the decision of people to NOT bear children. But hot weather is just the latest pain. Before global warming there were equally bad prospects for suffering.
Maybe the erudite moderators could have come up with something a little more elegant than "life sucks". "Suck" is worn out; as an expression of dissatisfaction, it sucks.
I remain skeptical of your sincerity.
Post 200 threads in succession on any philosophical topic you like and I'll learn to hate it pretty quick, thanks.
We should have an "All Metaphysics' thread, an "All Leftist Bullshit" thread, etc.
Quoting frank
Funny, I was about to respond to Baden, ironically, that now I have to worry about a "Metaphysics Sucks" thread where all my brilliant insights will go to die. I'm pretty sure your suggestion isn't ironic.
Thanks for feedback anyhow, guys. :up:
Sounds like you're getting annoyed with the situation.
Gave my explanation that it was primarily about the poster, not the topic. That was ignored in favour of more complaints about suppression of the topic. That's a little annoying but no biggie. Carry on.
Into every life, a little rain must fall.
I was thinking they could have named it after the old Saturday Night Live skit "Debbie Downer".
When life hands you lemons... :wink:
Agreed.
:up: 200 pulpits to evanhellise on one topic in expecting a little too much.
Can you make me a cartoon with a breast bearing fish with its hair straight up? Maybe that will clarify things for me.
It's about 3 or 4 of them, mostly. But, I mean, what's the point? Like, you want to depress everybody? Read the news.
You suffer so much in life? Then there is a way out, nobody is stopping you.
Jeez, it's hard to think of a topic on the internet in which the serious reply "kill yourself" wouldn't be taken as a threat.
third frame? 'How's your what? stapling? I googled it and got:
Stapling means your existing super account automatically follows you when you change jobs.
???
Must be a reflection of my slightly deranged state of mind that I'm seriously considering that.
Quoting Manuel
The topic is philosophically established and acceptable but the posting behaviour pushes the boundaries of the guidelines to say the least.
It is, and I agree. I do think you are being sensible here, I've protested once or twice before, but you guys do pretty good work by and large, in my opinion.
Beyond a point, there are diminishing returns on this topic.
:up:
Sounds like the plot of a postmodern horror movie. :lol:
I can only wish you the best of luck in trying to understand the logic put forwards by antinatalists.
I personally find it one of the most ridiculous idea's a human has ever come up with.
But as @Baden has already stated, the moderators action was about the attempt to flood the main debate area with anti-life threads, or at least over-represent the topic of anti-life in the main debate area. It was not an action to prevent the topic itself being debated.
And it makes sense, because it is essentially the same thought presented in slightly different ways, which can go one forever.
And it is a very narrow topic too, not much to add once the arguments have been established.
:lol: Spelling is not one of my strongest skills. I have no idea why my brain did not connect to stapling paper! Frame two is very clever but I now don't get frame 3 even more.
They have to get the vote out so they have to create pamphlets/flyers etc. So fish asks other fish "how's your stapling", other fish responds with 'I knew this would happen.'
The issue is around pessimism so ........
OH! I think the penny just dropped! is the message that expecting fish to staple is as ridiculous as expecting sentient lifeforms to vote for their own extinction!!!!!
Am I correct?
Could not agree with you more, then the proponents try to enhance the topic or try to defibrillate the topic, by conflating their irrational posits with propositional logic or some bizarre perceptions of some ideal, absolutely pure form of human morality when no such pure form exists.
The more important issue is, did you get @Baden's cartoon before me?
Is it not traditional that your hair stands on end when you are terrified by what you are looking at or is that viewpoint rather pessimistic?
Nope
He still has not confirmed that my analysis was correct!
Perhaps he is too busy creating even more enigmatic offerings with other strange (actually perfectly acceptable) words, my brain seems to have problems recognising, such as 'stapling' :scream:
There's a staple gun where I work that's huge and electric powered, and it makes a sound like a cannon going off when you press the lever. It makes me a little jittery, but then I remember what Kierkegaard said about the melancholy of knowing you're just another person, on another day, hearing the same cannon stapler that's been exploding over and over forever.
Then I feel better.
I like that. Although my usual go to to cheer me up is "At least I'm not a potato".
The adventures of Spud Jr.
I think for some people with mood issues and negative life experiences, it might make sense (in theory) never to have been born and to surmise that all lives are irrevocably marred by suffering and futility - the byproducts of living in a cruel world we didn't devise or choose to enter. There are a lot of folk out there living with chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy. This corrosive anhedonia easily trumps optimism and hope and is readily attracted to philosophical justifications for pessimism. And frankly, look around, it's not hard to see how some people might regard the world through shit colored glasses.
So, philosophically it demonstrably makes no sense at all to merge my discussion with a 'life sucks' thread. They have nothing in common. It is as stupid as merging a thread on the problem of evil with 'life sucks'. Would you do that? Do you think someone who thinks there is a problem of evil for theism is someone who thinks 'life sucks'?
If someone on a thread starts making 'life sucks' claims, then it is also absurd to make that a basis for merging it with another thread, especially when the person whose thread it is is continuing to take part in a focussed discussion of the OP - an OP which makes no 'life sucks' claim.
Given the philosophical ineptness of thinking my thread was at home in a 'life sucks' thread it is perfectly reasonable to conclude that the mods - or some of the mods here - have a bias against antinatalist threads, regardless of the particulars of the arguments, and so have a tendency to destroy any focussed discussion of them.
I can distinguish at least 8 distinct arguments that have antinatalist implications. Only one of those is what's known as a 'miserabilist' case that assumes life here subjects its liver to more harms than benefits. One. One out of 8 arguments that I know of. Yet clearly were I to make any of those other 7 arguments, my thread would be merged with this one. Why? So as to close the debate down.
I have never made a life sucks argument for antinatalism. The closest I have made is a death-based argument, but even then I still assume that life here benefits its liver more than it harms them (the harms come after). Every single argument I have made for antinatalism has NOT been a life sucks one. Note a single one.
You know that analyzing a person's motivation is not a legitimate criticism of a philosophical position.
Your post was a response to this from Universeness.
Quoting universeness
It's not much of an argument, but it is in response to anti-natalists position, not their psychological state.
This was yet another antinatalist argument dressed up in different clothes from someone who posts almost nothing except antinatalist arguments. So it was merged with the life sucks thread. It doesnt mean the argument was that life sucks thats simply the name of the thread.
I even extended the courtesy of messaging both of the individuals affected by the merge. The conversation can continue either way. Mostly a housekeeping move. Not a great injustice, fairly straightforward.
Also, it's mom, not mum. Chips, not crisps.
C minus.
Quoting universeness
I hold the view that people's professed beliefs often reflect personal context rather than logic.
My sunglasses are brown-coloured and the world looks pretty warm and good through them. Maybe "shit-stained glasses" through which the world would look spotty and leprous would be more apt? :joke:
That said, when the author of any thread continually starts the same discussion from slightly different perspectives, it makes one question their intent. To me, once youve had the discussion, and its run its inevitable course theres no need to do it all over again. Its isnt likely to change anyones mind or accomplish much of anything. Also, I could see how newcomers to TPF could be led to believe that this is primarily an AN site, with half of the threads on the main page being dedicated to that topic. So something clearly had to be done. I just think titling the thread using negative language is asking for criticism and concerns of biases among the mods.
:100: :sparkle:
I have yet to read a reply (note I have not read this whole thread in a focused mood) that seems to change the "200 threads on the same topic" dynamic. If that is true I mean.. what? What is the argument here? :lol:
No discussion is impacted. It's just in one thread. This isn't Times Square. The traffic footprint is low. Do we really have time for drama for drama's sake? Must be nice.
Fair point.
I would say this viewpoint would have a lot of support, especially if you ask people for a quick knee jerk response to a question like 'how's life for you?' just after they have watched news at 10 on the BBC.
WE ALL must take responsibility for such knee-jerk negative life viewpoints.
Here is one suggestion Tom. What if all news programs by law had to report in a more balanced way. The bad news and the good news, 50/50. Good news is rarely reported but is going on all over the planet every day.
Why was there not a news story such as 'The British Political system enables the removal of an incompetent prime minister within one month of their election!' I am not a fan of the current UK political system but the fact that it meant a Liz Truss approach would not survive scrutiny is good news!
Most people react rather than act. They are like little newborn birds with brain rather than mouth wide open hoping for some stimuli rather than food, to be fed to them. Apathy causes many to become like this when they are offered little hope. BUT there is plenty of hope out there. We are all responsible because we won't get out our armchairs and fight to change things. We all made this bed we live in, only we can wake out of our slumber and see who really runs everything. When we all agree who the enemy truly is, then we can smash them to smithereens, permanently!
This would remove a lot of the 'chronic dissatisfaction and an inability to find joy,' you suggest is so currently prominent. Who has all the cream right now, all the advantages, control over all the Earth's resources Tom? Who? and how come?
Exactly!
Good idea, change the 'Life sucks' thread into 'All antinatalism discussions here:'
Edit: I see I am playing catch up with @Baden again. Yeah, I know, read all the latest posts in a thread before responding to any of them. :blush:
Edit2: At least I can spell proper! He keeps typing evangelising when we all know its proper spellin is evanHELLising. Get a grip Irishman!
:rofl: Hey, wait a minute! 'Arguments FOR antinatalism,' is a wee bit too much of a swing towards supporting the topic rather than denigrating it. There are far more comments in that thread against than for. Much better to call it 'All antinatalism viewpoints here!' BALANCE!
Oh yeah... Changed.
Deleting threads works though.
I mean, his idealism is of the transcendental variety, but idealist nonetheless. How can an Idealist be a pessimist?
hmmmm
Everything I know, think, feel, and believe reflects "personal context" rather than logic. No one comes to believe things because of logic. Logic does not generate knowledge or understanding. It can, and sometimes does, validate or invalidate beliefs. E.g. do you think @universeness's opposition to anti-natalism comes from logic? His baloney gestures to logic are just a cover to support his desire that ideas he doesn't agree with should be censored.
That's actually not true. People vary in how much they trust logic. Some can march, one logical step at a time, to amazing effect.
Others flop around uselessly, not to mention any names.
Deductive logic only operates on propositions. The propositions have to come from somewhere. If you follow a logical chain of propositions back to the beginning, you'll come to one that can't be generated by deductive logic.
Propositions can be generated by inductive logic. Following a standard scientific type process, you start with observations, use them to generate hypotheses, and then test those hypotheses against further observations. Logic of either type is not able to make the step from the original observation to hypothesis. That requires insight, intuition.
Yes. My mum used to say something like you can't reason someone out of a position that wasn't arrived at through reason. Is there much point in debate or dialogue if worldviews like pessimism are derived and held outside of reason? Some people plainly do change their positions, but I wonder to what extent this is driven by an internal process rather than exposure to argument. Probably off topic, right?
Quoting universeness
I was referring to those who embrace pessimism and antinatalism with some dedication, not to general dissatisfaction with culture and politics. A whole different debate, I suspect.
Sure, but much can be accomplished by using deductive reasoning on premises that are sufficiently verifiable. And so-called "hinge propositions" aren't usually a matter of personal taste. They emerge from your form: physically, psychologically, and culturally.
Quoting T Clark
That's not inductive reasoning. Induction is like when you see the sun rise in the east every morning and conclude that the sun always rises in the east.
Perhaps we should start a thread on induction. It's a fascinating topic. :smile:
You are just typing inaccurate trash about me TC. I seem to occupy much more space in your head than you do in mine. If you want to try to counter my arguments then do so directly, rather than this poor attempt by proxy. I think you should look again at the relationship individuals have between their beliefs and their application of logic. By doing so, you may eventually escape your dalliances and irrational defence of theists. Do the words in the offering below hold an important place in your heart TC?
"Top Cat?" We call it Don Gato in Spain :sweat:
OR, you might conclude that the sun does not rise at all, it is the Earth that turns.
Yeah, different languages but same character types!