InMendham's Privileged Perspective

Can we trust InMendham to decide what's best for us? Does he have a privileged perspective by which to judge the rest of humanity, and other sentient life forms? Here is my reply to his diatribe from his most recent threatening video directed at me on his website, donotgod dot com.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• InMendham
• antinatalism
• philosophy
• NDE
• ProfessorAnton
• 0ThouArtThat0

[EnglishGoethe]

@Drew2OOO They don't account for all of the features of the NDE, the centerpiece of which is remote, verified perception. I don't really know what might be going on with the NDE. There are many non-survivalist explanations that are possible. What I'm convinced of is the need to make this life count, Drew. Please, swing for the fence!!!!!

[drew2OOO]

What do you think about the theory of Dimethyltryptamine being responsible for NDE's and OBE's?

[EnglishGoethe]

@EnglishGoethe faith in yourself, society, and the possibility of an ever better future, despite the risk of setbacks. And, after all of this, if a few very determined researchers are right, our efforts here will be worth it, for we're immortal beings who will continue on after the demise of our bodies. But whether or not that's the case, my refutation of anti-natalism stands, and David Benatar is thus vanquished by another philosopher. Thank you for writing an interesting book, David. Onward.

[EnglishGoethe]

@EnglishGoethe of anti-natalism wouldn't be just as bad on existent humans as the alleged harm of coming into existence that anti-natalists posit as a moral evil (because it would lead to new beings suffering)? No matter what people do, suffering is built in. Therefore, let's do things in spite of suffering, rather than giving up. I preach optimism over pessimism, and that is a choice. It is something to strive for. It isn't easy. It's rarely a given resulting from one's disposition. It takes

[EnglishGoethe]

@EnglishGoethe in the case of Huntington's disease. If there are reasonable odds that the baby will be healthy and live in a good environment, then there is no legitimate moral argument to be made against anti-natalism, in view of my refutation, above. Also, it would seem very strange to privilege the well-being of a non-existent being over the well-being of existent beings. Progress demands procreation. Progress isn't guaranteed, but it does seem likely. And who is to say that the consequences

[EnglishGoethe]

@JonPaulPrime I'd like to point out a specific refutation of anti-natalism. At some point, a new baby will be born that will become a biological researcher, and invent a cure for HIV. This result will spare millions of humans living at that time a horrific death, and it will prevent untold future suffering by as yet unborn children. In such a case, anti-natalism seems highly immoral. Anti-natalism makes sense only where significant suffering seems likely to ensue from procreation, e.g.

[Professoranton]

@JonPaulPrime " You say, "no one has the right to impose the potential risk." I fail to understand.  Do people have the ability to make such decisions? Do they really have the requisite agency and freedom of choice to be responsible? Gary seems to want it both ways: 1: (he claims people are not free and all), AND, 2: (he claims they have no right to impose...) If I have no freedom, then I don't need any "right," right? Or no? Is this not inconsistent or incoherent?

[Qntkka]

Very well said. InMendham is a great showman, and I tend to agree with him on many topics. I do see the obvious flaws in his rhetoric. He claims that the world is shit, yet he worries about the suffering of other sentients, and that is senseless. He speaks of life as "the experiment", as if it were God's experiment (which he doesn't belief in), man's experiment (which we have no free will to deny the experiment), or DNA's experiment (again, the DNA has no free will in his philosophy).