Also to the GBD, what exactly are you trying to argue? I find it so vague, unless I've missed some other videos you've made that have some sort of context. It's clear that life is pointless, but why shouldn't one make something out of nothing, is there no reason in that? Or maybe I've misunderstood this all..
Horrible to kill an ant??? shit, how would you survive without pasta?? It is called "the wild west" for a reason - a bear would eat your ass !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I AM ACCOMPLISHING YOU ASSHOLE!!!!!! 1) I fucked a nice red head the other day... very nice, 2) I watched a nice film 3) I picked a nice booger from my nose!!
Just read about this insect stuff on wikipedia. According to wikipedia in 2003 they discovered that some insects actually have nociceptors i.e they can feel pain. Fuck.
Someone might say that you're only projecting your human emotions to the bug. Then again, they might actually feel something so I'd rather try not to squish them. Better safe than sorry.
If you are an objectivist then you believe that the person who discovered peneccilin acomplished something. You want to cure the disease by killing the patient I think.
And I still don't understand why purpose is a delusion even after watching this. It seems to me that people can find a purpose that is backed up by legitimate reasons.
@AEVautomatic People can manufacture or "delude" themselves into whatever purpose they want for their own existence. The challenge is not for people to justify their continued existence, but rather for parents to provide valid justifications for bringing children into existence. People seem to like to confuse the two.
@FreeLongPig Instead of saying, "hey let's just stop having babies because existence can cause pain and suffering," why don't we attempt to turn this world into something otherwise, whereby babies, children, women and men, could rather experience something joyful. Let's clean up the mess...? I would agree, though, that there a lot of people out there carelessly bringing babies into existence, but then again, there's also intelligent people who are prepared for the responsibility. Wend2abolshgovt
@FreeLongPig And I respect your right to do so too. I think I get your point. So you're saying that, because 'souls' or whatever you'd like to call them, they don't choose to be brought into existence, therefore, they shouldn't be brought into existence, or at least people shouldn't be encouraged to bring 'unwilling souls' into existence? If that is wrong, could you please explain. I would really love to understand your pov. Personally, I wouldn't bring any children into the world of today.
@tonyfalca Well, my personal rationale is centered around two premises:
1-Aversion to a stimulus and exposure to that stimulus is WORSE than no aversion and no stimulus.
2-Desire for a stimulus and exposure to that stimulus is NOT BETTER than no desire and no stimulus.
Simplified, my personal rationale can be simplified to no deprivation > deprivation. Apparently, from antinatalist blogs that I've read, the lack of consent is also one of the reasons given against procreating.
Okay, (1) so a dislike to a stimulus and exposure to that is worse than no dislike and no stimulus.
I feel as if I understand your logic, rational or reason, but I should inform you that an aversion, or dislike, boils down to your personal point of view. Your rational demonstrates that, basically, people are helpless when it comes to adjusting their points of view, or their likes and dislikes. Just as likely as life can cause deprivation, life can cause abundance. dpndng on yr pov
(2) I struggle to understand your second rational; I struggle to understand how exposure to a stimulus is worse than no stimulus in the first place. I feel as if that's possible and impossible yet never definite. It can be true while in other instances false. Again, everything is accord to our points of view, so we may have to agree to disagree. What are your thoughts on my interpretations?
@tonyfalca Personally, I feel as if we, each and everyone of us, can indeed affect the stimulu, our point of view and or what that point of view is viewing.
Sorry for the spam, but I just wanted to clarify what I intended to write: (1) so a dislike to a stimulus and exposure to that **stimulus** is worse than no dislike and no stimulus.
@tonyfalca "What are your thoughts on my interpretations?"
I think your overestimating people's ability to control what is good and bad. One of the negative aspects of the pervasive "positive psychology" culture is that it declares that people essentially choose to be unhappy and that pain isn't real.
I also think you may be confused or that you simply typed something wrong. You just wrote that you understand how something could be worse and then contradicted yourself.
You misunderstood my mesage. It has nothing at all to do with the "positive psychology culture" (or optimism for short that,) which you've mentioned. What I'm trying to say is that, WHAT YOU CAN AFFECT is your personal perspective, which ultimately determines what is good and what is bad. If you assume and employ the belief that you cannot have any affect over your own perspective whatsoever, then you're right, you'd become helpless, or a victim to circumstances... dz that mk sense?
What I understand as your argument to be, is that any dislike is better than no dislike. I would totally agree with that. In the most ideal situation, however, you do have the choice to stop disliking whatever it may be that you dislike in the first place. If you cannot stop disliking something, CHANGE the WAY you SEE it, change your point of view, change your understanding... I hope that makes sense?
@FreeLongPig "I feel as if that's possible and impossible yet never definite." What I mean by this is that, anything and absolutely everything is a potential. Stop limiting the possibilities by permanently fixing your perspective forever, keep adjusting, never stop adjusting. Sorry for the spam once again, but I hope this allows you to understand just what I'm getting at.
@FreeLongPig I was just explaining my response to the argument you provided, which you supposedly misunderstood. I thought we could discuss it, but I guess it's not up for debate, huh?
@tonyfalca Well, I'll discuss it with if you want, but to be polite I'll only communicate through PMs from now on. The no deprivation-deprivation inequality is still on the table. So far what you've tried to do, from my perspective, is reference coping mechanisms in an attempt to try to frame pain as non-real, which is exactly what I stated one of the negative aspects of the "positive psychology subculture" was a few comments back.
Look, if you believe in antinatalism then how can you not think humans are important? Animals will not antinatal themselves. The fact your channel exists on you tube proves we are special because we are "self reflexive." We are actually able to break through evolution if you can reason that reproduction should stop.
I also have an accounting question- if we assume a life that has equal good and bad parts, except it has one iota more good then bad, does that life become worth living -- and one iota in the other direction, does it become not worth living?
If granted this, how many iotas in the bad direction should a sane man endure?
@mindprism even a balanced sheet is worth tossing but. this analogy because hard because there is so much more value to a sawed off arm than some pleasures. So this analogy is so far off it's hard to work with. It's more like a deficit with numbers we can't conceptualize. and hoping taxes will pay it, and some have really MEAN rationalizations about people saying we all reap what we sow, and so that can be likened to spending cuts. We're hurting, so we pile on more hurt.
@mindprism what do you mean decide for others? You're seriously going to say I MUST have children, they don't even exist. I'm not a vessel for them.It's profoundly stupid to say that a gene wants something and that you need to provide that. Gene delusion, it wants nothing. Why does it have dominion over sentient creatures that feel pain? Do you ask yourself these questions before you bang them out on a keyboard? You honestly can't argue this with yourself? Also gary covers that in this video.
@boobootoob Am talking about the general philosophy -- you say you are sparing your non-existant children pain, what about their pleasure.
In short, what is that thing that makes you go on living? You have got a big tactical problem with spreading your philosophy compared to other 'handed down' ideologies.
{Why does it have dominion over sentient creatures}
How do you know the sentient creatures are not an illusion? Prove you are not as robotic as the gene.
@boobootoob The thing I find interesting is this, Gary is using the "creature" accounting system of pleasure/pain to judge life - something that most probably requires a more refined value system.
Think of it this way, if I as a human being wanted the most pleasure and the least pain - the correct strategy to life would be to spend my days popping happy pills at the funny farm and use every waking hour to yank on my dick.
@boobootoob {Why does it have dominion over sentient creatures}
The creator is always greater than the created. The creator owns what it creates. Logic 101.
So, unless you are going to contend that the gene kidnapped your soul from heaven to unjustly enslave it, you have no case. Sentience, if it really exists, belongs to the gene as much as your whole body.
All of these are crazy delineations anyway - its all one phenomena.
If the suffering of what can largely be called transient, possibly imaginary, sentience can be raised to a value scale higher than matter itself, why would not the nobility to endure the suffering, for whatever we may accomplish, even at a net negative, be raised to a scale that obliterates that negative?
Taking away all the BS, isnt this the message of the redeemer, Jesus Christ?
For sake of example, let us say that life on Earth is destined to become the singularity - a God like entity who can do anything and will do it for trillions of years -- but, the only thing it cannot do is prevent the universe from ending, along with itself.
Question: Does that make it all for naught? And is that not the same thing going on in the individual human lifespan though on a smaller scale? Does it really have to be net positive, or can it be, like suffering, measured differently--noble
@mindprism Pretty much, even if we were able to manipulate all matter and energy in the universe as some sort of "godlike singularity" we would still not be able to (unless physics is somehow horribly wrong) prevent the universes end as you imply.
In the same way everything humanity has achieved would be for naught if the Earth got sucked into a black hole tommorow, everything life achieves will be for naught when the universe inevitably disperses.
Excellent clip. Such a threnodic predicament, whether physiological or psychological; even worse when you understand this predicament. In a fair universe, this would all be--at worst--just a terrible dream. No such luck. And the desire function seems not much different than that of Jethro Bodine always wanting to go to the Kit Kat Club.
I guess this is what happens when nobody minds the store.
Also to the GBD, what exactly are you trying to argue? I find it so vague, unless I've missed some other videos you've made that have some sort of context. It's clear that life is pointless, but why shouldn't one make something out of nothing, is there no reason in that? Or maybe I've misunderstood this all..
tonyfalca 5 months ago
Horrible to kill an ant??? shit, how would you survive without pasta?? It is called "the wild west" for a reason - a bear would eat your ass !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
VitaM1977 5 months ago
I AM ACCOMPLISHING YOU ASSHOLE!!!!!! 1) I fucked a nice red head the other day... very nice, 2) I watched a nice film 3) I picked a nice booger from my nose!!
4) Had a great fucking dream!!!
THIS IS EVOLUTION BITCH !!
VitaM1977 5 months ago
Swimming in cold water is COOL !!! stupid dingbat fucker!!
Also... DIAMONDS are METAPHORS FOR.... ?????
VitaM1977 5 months ago
Just read about this insect stuff on wikipedia. According to wikipedia in 2003 they discovered that some insects actually have nociceptors i.e they can feel pain. Fuck.
Night0fTheLivingAN 5 months ago
Someone might say that you're only projecting your human emotions to the bug. Then again, they might actually feel something so I'd rather try not to squish them. Better safe than sorry.
Night0fTheLivingAN 5 months ago
This is our circumstance, individually and collectively. We didn't ask for it, here it is, what are we to make of it? Much of it and money of it.
HigherPlanes 5 months ago
If you are an objectivist then you believe that the person who discovered peneccilin acomplished something. You want to cure the disease by killing the patient I think.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
And I still don't understand why purpose is a delusion even after watching this. It seems to me that people can find a purpose that is backed up by legitimate reasons.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
@AEVautomatic People can manufacture or "delude" themselves into whatever purpose they want for their own existence. The challenge is not for people to justify their continued existence, but rather for parents to provide valid justifications for bringing children into existence. People seem to like to confuse the two.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago 3
@FreeLongPig That is the same as saying people can delude themselves in believing an objective morality.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
@FreeLongPig If it is backed up by legitimate reasons its not a delusion.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
@FreeLongPig Instead of saying, "hey let's just stop having babies because existence can cause pain and suffering," why don't we attempt to turn this world into something otherwise, whereby babies, children, women and men, could rather experience something joyful. Let's clean up the mess...? I would agree, though, that there a lot of people out there carelessly bringing babies into existence, but then again, there's also intelligent people who are prepared for the responsibility. Wend2abolshgovt
tonyfalca 5 months ago
@tonyfalca I have no intention of forcing any children of mine to live and I encourage any childless person to do the same.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
@FreeLongPig And I respect your right to do so too. I think I get your point. So you're saying that, because 'souls' or whatever you'd like to call them, they don't choose to be brought into existence, therefore, they shouldn't be brought into existence, or at least people shouldn't be encouraged to bring 'unwilling souls' into existence? If that is wrong, could you please explain. I would really love to understand your pov. Personally, I wouldn't bring any children into the world of today.
tonyfalca 5 months ago
@tonyfalca Well, my personal rationale is centered around two premises:
1-Aversion to a stimulus and exposure to that stimulus is WORSE than no aversion and no stimulus.
2-Desire for a stimulus and exposure to that stimulus is NOT BETTER than no desire and no stimulus.
Simplified, my personal rationale can be simplified to no deprivation > deprivation. Apparently, from antinatalist blogs that I've read, the lack of consent is also one of the reasons given against procreating.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
@FreeLongPig
Okay, (1) so a dislike to a stimulus and exposure to that is worse than no dislike and no stimulus.
I feel as if I understand your logic, rational or reason, but I should inform you that an aversion, or dislike, boils down to your personal point of view. Your rational demonstrates that, basically, people are helpless when it comes to adjusting their points of view, or their likes and dislikes. Just as likely as life can cause deprivation, life can cause abundance. dpndng on yr pov
tonyfalca 5 months ago
@FreeLongPig
(2) I struggle to understand your second rational; I struggle to understand how exposure to a stimulus is worse than no stimulus in the first place. I feel as if that's possible and impossible yet never definite. It can be true while in other instances false. Again, everything is accord to our points of view, so we may have to agree to disagree. What are your thoughts on my interpretations?
tonyfalca 5 months ago
@tonyfalca Personally, I feel as if we, each and everyone of us, can indeed affect the stimulu, our point of view and or what that point of view is viewing.
Sorry for the spam, but I just wanted to clarify what I intended to write: (1) so a dislike to a stimulus and exposure to that **stimulus** is worse than no dislike and no stimulus.
tonyfalca 5 months ago
@tonyfalca "What are your thoughts on my interpretations?"
I think your overestimating people's ability to control what is good and bad. One of the negative aspects of the pervasive "positive psychology" culture is that it declares that people essentially choose to be unhappy and that pain isn't real.
I also think you may be confused or that you simply typed something wrong. You just wrote that you understand how something could be worse and then contradicted yourself.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
@FreeLongPig
You misunderstood my mesage. It has nothing at all to do with the "positive psychology culture" (or optimism for short that,) which you've mentioned. What I'm trying to say is that, WHAT YOU CAN AFFECT is your personal perspective, which ultimately determines what is good and what is bad. If you assume and employ the belief that you cannot have any affect over your own perspective whatsoever, then you're right, you'd become helpless, or a victim to circumstances... dz that mk sense?
tonyfalca 5 months ago
@FreeLongPig
What I understand as your argument to be, is that any dislike is better than no dislike. I would totally agree with that. In the most ideal situation, however, you do have the choice to stop disliking whatever it may be that you dislike in the first place. If you cannot stop disliking something, CHANGE the WAY you SEE it, change your point of view, change your understanding... I hope that makes sense?
tonyfalca 5 months ago
@tonyfalca "I feel as if that's possible and impossible yet never definite."
That statement made my mind go "bleeeegh".
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
@FreeLongPig "I feel as if that's possible and impossible yet never definite." What I mean by this is that, anything and absolutely everything is a potential. Stop limiting the possibilities by permanently fixing your perspective forever, keep adjusting, never stop adjusting. Sorry for the spam once again, but I hope this allows you to understand just what I'm getting at.
tonyfalca 5 months ago
@tonyfalca You just wanted to give a motivational speech, huh? Am I right?
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
@FreeLongPig I was just explaining my response to the argument you provided, which you supposedly misunderstood. I thought we could discuss it, but I guess it's not up for debate, huh?
tonyfalca 5 months ago
@tonyfalca Well, I'll discuss it with if you want, but to be polite I'll only communicate through PMs from now on. The no deprivation-deprivation inequality is still on the table. So far what you've tried to do, from my perspective, is reference coping mechanisms in an attempt to try to frame pain as non-real, which is exactly what I stated one of the negative aspects of the "positive psychology subculture" was a few comments back.
FreeLongPig 5 months ago
I gotta be honest I don't know what you want me to say. I understand the reality, but I am not willing to "let it go."
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
Look, if you believe in antinatalism then how can you not think humans are important? Animals will not antinatal themselves. The fact your channel exists on you tube proves we are special because we are "self reflexive." We are actually able to break through evolution if you can reason that reproduction should stop.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
You see. To prove we are special I only need to point out 1 thing.
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
What if our function was to hold together the universe. How would that make us special?
AEVautomatic 5 months ago
the heard is being thinned out....eco science
CovenantOfLove 5 months ago
The only way to obliterate the negative is too never create the means by which the negative could exist.
stagedive40 5 months ago 16
@stagedive40 Well said.
CosmicSeaman 5 months ago
I also have an accounting question- if we assume a life that has equal good and bad parts, except it has one iota more good then bad, does that life become worth living -- and one iota in the other direction, does it become not worth living?
If granted this, how many iotas in the bad direction should a sane man endure?
mindprism 5 months ago
@mindprism even a balanced sheet is worth tossing but. this analogy because hard because there is so much more value to a sawed off arm than some pleasures. So this analogy is so far off it's hard to work with. It's more like a deficit with numbers we can't conceptualize. and hoping taxes will pay it, and some have really MEAN rationalizations about people saying we all reap what we sow, and so that can be likened to spending cuts. We're hurting, so we pile on more hurt.
boobootoob 5 months ago
@boobootoob Even if life isn't worth it, how do you presume to decide for others? What of the unborn who don't care if it is not worth it?
If the gene created sentience, is it not its property and dominion?
mindprism 5 months ago
@mindprism what do you mean decide for others? You're seriously going to say I MUST have children, they don't even exist. I'm not a vessel for them.It's profoundly stupid to say that a gene wants something and that you need to provide that. Gene delusion, it wants nothing. Why does it have dominion over sentient creatures that feel pain? Do you ask yourself these questions before you bang them out on a keyboard? You honestly can't argue this with yourself? Also gary covers that in this video.
boobootoob 5 months ago
@boobootoob Am talking about the general philosophy -- you say you are sparing your non-existant children pain, what about their pleasure.
In short, what is that thing that makes you go on living? You have got a big tactical problem with spreading your philosophy compared to other 'handed down' ideologies.
{Why does it have dominion over sentient creatures}
How do you know the sentient creatures are not an illusion? Prove you are not as robotic as the gene.
mindprism 5 months ago
@boobootoob The thing I find interesting is this, Gary is using the "creature" accounting system of pleasure/pain to judge life - something that most probably requires a more refined value system.
Think of it this way, if I as a human being wanted the most pleasure and the least pain - the correct strategy to life would be to spend my days popping happy pills at the funny farm and use every waking hour to yank on my dick.
Obviously this is not what its "all about"
mindprism 5 months ago
@boobootoob {Why does it have dominion over sentient creatures}
The creator is always greater than the created. The creator owns what it creates. Logic 101.
So, unless you are going to contend that the gene kidnapped your soul from heaven to unjustly enslave it, you have no case. Sentience, if it really exists, belongs to the gene as much as your whole body.
All of these are crazy delineations anyway - its all one phenomena.
mindprism 5 months ago
If the suffering of what can largely be called transient, possibly imaginary, sentience can be raised to a value scale higher than matter itself, why would not the nobility to endure the suffering, for whatever we may accomplish, even at a net negative, be raised to a scale that obliterates that negative?
Taking away all the BS, isnt this the message of the redeemer, Jesus Christ?
mindprism 5 months ago
For sake of example, let us say that life on Earth is destined to become the singularity - a God like entity who can do anything and will do it for trillions of years -- but, the only thing it cannot do is prevent the universe from ending, along with itself.
Question: Does that make it all for naught? And is that not the same thing going on in the individual human lifespan though on a smaller scale? Does it really have to be net positive, or can it be, like suffering, measured differently--noble
mindprism 5 months ago 2
@mindprism Pretty much, even if we were able to manipulate all matter and energy in the universe as some sort of "godlike singularity" we would still not be able to (unless physics is somehow horribly wrong) prevent the universes end as you imply.
In the same way everything humanity has achieved would be for naught if the Earth got sucked into a black hole tommorow, everything life achieves will be for naught when the universe inevitably disperses.
BeardedBill86 5 months ago
Excellent clip. Such a threnodic predicament, whether physiological or psychological; even worse when you understand this predicament. In a fair universe, this would all be--at worst--just a terrible dream. No such luck. And the desire function seems not much different than that of Jethro Bodine always wanting to go to the Kit Kat Club.
I guess this is what happens when nobody minds the store.
iGeneralist 5 months ago