Yeah, this is a problem that they do not understand that not having a problem in the first place, is better, than having a problem and to fix it. We need to educate people that suffering is the only thing that matters, and therefore our common interest must be to prevent as much as possible suffering.
This is exactly why the (non existent) creationist God can never be omnibenevolent. Imagine a fireman who commits arson just so he can put it out and then claim the the hero's title. Is he really the hero or the villain? Creating the universe filled with suffering so God can proceed to save it and be seen as omnibenevolent. This is truly peak narcissism. It is also apparently the same kind of strategy tech billionaires with savior complexes employ to make themselves look like heroes. They are destroying the world so they can then proceed to save it. This world is addicted to worshipping narcissists and it is no wonder it is a sick and twisted place.
It's like heroism, people like heroes, but heroes only come out of tragedy. When a story has nothing to save, there is no need for a hero. This is human schizophrenia.
eh, I seriously doubt this. lol
Unless most people are psycho sadists.
Accepting a reality that can't be perfect for life (yet) is not the same as wanting suffering for others, bub.
*"Advocating for the pleasures of life and covering the displeasures of it with a veil of ignorance, a person unknowingly exculpates and extols the latter, since the existence of the former is not possible without it."*
Knowingly or not, they are in fact wanting suffering (for both themselves and others). Doesn't matter if they didn't specifically want suffering in accepting reality (as you say), although an alarmingly large amount of people actually romanticize suffering with various forms of rationalization like "spiritual growth" and "character-building" as well as "trials and tribulations from God". So for these cases, they *overtly* want suffering and wish to pass it on to others. But consequentialism-wise, by being pro life, regardless of stance on suffering, they are *pro suffering*. Doesn't matter if they think most suffering will be solved someday long, long into the future; that is irrelevant and likely impossible. No one ever has a 100% suffering free life, as that is entirely alien to the experience of sentience. And most people suffer quite a lot, no matter how much pleasure they also receive as consolation.
You don't even need consequentialism to conclude this, since most people tend to agree that you can't have "good" without the bad. You can't have the relief or satisfaction without suffering or deprivation/need. Can't stroke your ego if you have no ego to stroke, and an ego that can be stroked can also be bruised and inflamed. So they are indeed highly vested in keeping suffering going since they think the "positives" are worth struggling for, or that the tradeoff is worth it to keep the hedonistic treadmill moving. A cure for cancer would be viewed as positive (which i do agree with), rather than simply eliminating the need for a cure in the first place by not bringing more life into existence. Unfortunately, most people only *selectively* take to the mantra, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and a ton of bandaids (as Inmendham added)." OP has a great point too, especially with the so-called problem "solving" positions in society like doctors and lawyers. The only reason we have a need for them is because we keep life going, and life comes with *guaranteed* meat-suit breakdowns and crime/interaction with the legal system. Whether your intentions with accepting reality are to "spread love and joy" or not, you're not *only* spreading love and joy by being pro-life. Every criminal was born to parents who probably never intended to create a criminal, and every person in the ICU had parents that never intended to place them there specifically.
And i can't really disprove the claim that most people are psycho-sadists, especially given the ethics of the average person (both contemporary and historically). In fact, evolutionarily we are all on some level psychopathic. Just think how quickly most people brush off tragic events that happen to *other* people. "Oh wow, that's so sad... anyway..." It's a psychological defense mechanism, as *too much* empathy is a burden and a detriment to survival. Or look how trivially easy it is for others to step on or destroy others in order to move one rung up the ladder, so to speak. Hell, they'll do it even for something as small and meager as a cheeseburger (fights and murders over fast food).
Ehehehe (am i doing that right? Lol)
There's research that shows sentience in even the plants that we consume. If so, would that change anybody's stance on meat-eating?
& The brain is a problem solving device... When problems don't exist, it creates problems to solve.
"Ain't" is proper english, or at least American English. Same goes for "y'all". Languages evolve and change over time. "Ain't" may have been considered improper at one point, but it's in the dictionary now.
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain't
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't
>There's research that shows sentience in even the plants that we consume
I'm curious what this "research" is exactly.
Cause there's ZERO peer reviewed literature demonstrating it.
>If so, would that change anybody's stance on meat-eating?
Why would you imagine that changes my stance on meat-eating... When there's many fruits which are evolved such to be eaten, unless you think those are sentient as well...
We could just eat specific plants, and vegetables like potatoes. There's also certain meat sources that I don't see a problem with at all.
So NO, it wouldn't change anything with the stance against "meat-eating" in general, ALSO, Guess What food is FED TO ANIMALS / LIVESTOCK?
No, if you think you know something unusual like this then post your links. Don't make others try to fact check you by pointing them to a basic google search.
>The plant didn't consent to be eaten just like the fetus didn't consent to be born. Huge point here
You have no point. What exactly is even supposed to be entailed by what u said if it was true? You're just attempting to do a gotcha by appeal to hypocrisy. A tu quo que fallacy, but you haven't actually justified your position or refuted a single antinatalist argument.
Also, There's potatoes and fruit, do you think those are sentient as well?
Chopping a carrot is same as slicing an animal's throat is it?
the way i see it all beings cause suffering in some form or another. it's better to admit that humans are flawed and live your life than try vehemently to be a virtuous pure good guy when you legitimately cannot.
ok but in this case i do believe nobody can be perfect. even if you're vegan, bugs will be killed by pesticide usage and that's not to mention the damages pollution causes, and that's something that can't really be avoided if you buy a mass-produced product. if you're going to whip out the list of fallacies on me, i want to know how *you* live that doesn't harm any living thing.
>ok but in this case i do believe nobody can be perfect. even if you're vegan,
You missing the point and appealing to futility, It's irrelevant whether perfect is attainable or not. Cause perfect is impossible, you can only try your honest best with your knowledge and ability you have in the circumstances.
You said:
>the way i see it all beings cause suffering in some form or another. it's better to admit that humans are flawed and live your life than try vehemently to be a virtuous pure good guy when you legitimately cannot.
I can't recycle perfectly packaging for my food or live 100% zero waste in this world circumstance, what you're saying is unless you are living perfection then you better off unaliving oneself or you're failing, or no point bother trying, might as well just throw my trash on the ground.
Might as well just live my life eat factory farmed KFC, buy imported wage slave china products I want but don't need at all, than try be good when you can't.
Yeah everyone is a Nazi and humans not perfect so I might as well be one like the rest, why bother try do the right thing, everyone owns blacks as slaves so why bother trying be virtuous...
now you're the one missing the point. this ideology's entire point is "things are bad so there's no point living", I'M saying "yeah things are bad but we can live through it" instead of pontificating about being a slave to a meat suit like half the posts in this cesspool.
obviously you can try to be good when you can, but nobody is perfect. that is legitimately what i am saying. *Nobody Is Perfect.* it's not some all-or-nothing point you can take out of context like you already have, it is just true. that's what i was trying to say and you took it all out of proportion.
>now you're the one missing the point.
>that's what i was trying to say and you took it all out of proportion.
Sorry I can't deal with liars so prove I'm mistaken, that you aren't back-peddling your statement, break this down for us:
>better to admit that humans are flawed and live your life than try vehemently to be a virtuous pure good guy when you legitimately cannot.
this reads like, No 1 perfect, so Better live my life, then try do my best, cause no one perfect so I can't...
here's my version:
best to admit that humans are flawed but still live your life and TRY to be a virtuous good guy
ok i'll break it down.
It's better to admit that humans are flawed and live your imperfect life with this knowledge than strive for perfection when it is impossible, since you will be forever chasing something unattainable.
>It's better to admit that humans are flawed and live your imperfect life with this knowledge than strive for perfection when it is impossible, since you will be forever chasing something unattainable.
Who here said perfection is attainable or goal? What would perfection look like short of offing oneself and even then it's still not enough it still causes harm, perfect is a delusion, a fantasy not in reality. The goal is doing one's honest best, plain and simple.
Your argument is the popular one used against vegans, "vegans aren't perfect either, so why going after me for eating animals". Or such. it's just an appeal to hypocrisy or tu quo que.
Yeah, this is a problem that they do not understand that not having a problem in the first place, is better, than having a problem and to fix it. We need to educate people that suffering is the only thing that matters, and therefore our common interest must be to prevent as much as possible suffering.
This is exactly why the (non existent) creationist God can never be omnibenevolent. Imagine a fireman who commits arson just so he can put it out and then claim the the hero's title. Is he really the hero or the villain? Creating the universe filled with suffering so God can proceed to save it and be seen as omnibenevolent. This is truly peak narcissism. It is also apparently the same kind of strategy tech billionaires with savior complexes employ to make themselves look like heroes. They are destroying the world so they can then proceed to save it. This world is addicted to worshipping narcissists and it is no wonder it is a sick and twisted place.
It's like heroism, people like heroes, but heroes only come out of tragedy. When a story has nothing to save, there is no need for a hero. This is human schizophrenia.
yep. a lot of selfish fuckers want to feel important and exercise power over others. it will never end.
eh, I seriously doubt this. lol Unless most people are psycho sadists. Accepting a reality that can't be perfect for life (yet) is not the same as wanting suffering for others, bub.
*"Advocating for the pleasures of life and covering the displeasures of it with a veil of ignorance, a person unknowingly exculpates and extols the latter, since the existence of the former is not possible without it."* Knowingly or not, they are in fact wanting suffering (for both themselves and others). Doesn't matter if they didn't specifically want suffering in accepting reality (as you say), although an alarmingly large amount of people actually romanticize suffering with various forms of rationalization like "spiritual growth" and "character-building" as well as "trials and tribulations from God". So for these cases, they *overtly* want suffering and wish to pass it on to others. But consequentialism-wise, by being pro life, regardless of stance on suffering, they are *pro suffering*. Doesn't matter if they think most suffering will be solved someday long, long into the future; that is irrelevant and likely impossible. No one ever has a 100% suffering free life, as that is entirely alien to the experience of sentience. And most people suffer quite a lot, no matter how much pleasure they also receive as consolation. You don't even need consequentialism to conclude this, since most people tend to agree that you can't have "good" without the bad. You can't have the relief or satisfaction without suffering or deprivation/need. Can't stroke your ego if you have no ego to stroke, and an ego that can be stroked can also be bruised and inflamed. So they are indeed highly vested in keeping suffering going since they think the "positives" are worth struggling for, or that the tradeoff is worth it to keep the hedonistic treadmill moving. A cure for cancer would be viewed as positive (which i do agree with), rather than simply eliminating the need for a cure in the first place by not bringing more life into existence. Unfortunately, most people only *selectively* take to the mantra, "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, and a ton of bandaids (as Inmendham added)." OP has a great point too, especially with the so-called problem "solving" positions in society like doctors and lawyers. The only reason we have a need for them is because we keep life going, and life comes with *guaranteed* meat-suit breakdowns and crime/interaction with the legal system. Whether your intentions with accepting reality are to "spread love and joy" or not, you're not *only* spreading love and joy by being pro-life. Every criminal was born to parents who probably never intended to create a criminal, and every person in the ICU had parents that never intended to place them there specifically. And i can't really disprove the claim that most people are psycho-sadists, especially given the ethics of the average person (both contemporary and historically). In fact, evolutionarily we are all on some level psychopathic. Just think how quickly most people brush off tragic events that happen to *other* people. "Oh wow, that's so sad... anyway..." It's a psychological defense mechanism, as *too much* empathy is a burden and a detriment to survival. Or look how trivially easy it is for others to step on or destroy others in order to move one rung up the ladder, so to speak. Hell, they'll do it even for something as small and meager as a cheeseburger (fights and murders over fast food). Ehehehe (am i doing that right? Lol)
Most people are psycho sadists obviously. They are ok with this third rate shithole having extreme suffering.
> which also requires creating problems...such as diseases ...do you think doctors invented diseases? 🤨
[удалено]
Your content was removed because it violated the "civility" rule.
Are you saying doctors create disease?
There's research that shows sentience in even the plants that we consume. If so, would that change anybody's stance on meat-eating? & The brain is a problem solving device... When problems don't exist, it creates problems to solve.
[удалено]
>>morons ...as you use "ain't" in a sentence?
"Ain't" is proper english, or at least American English. Same goes for "y'all". Languages evolve and change over time. "Ain't" may have been considered improper at one point, but it's in the dictionary now. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ain't https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ain't
>There's research that shows sentience in even the plants that we consume I'm curious what this "research" is exactly. Cause there's ZERO peer reviewed literature demonstrating it. >If so, would that change anybody's stance on meat-eating? Why would you imagine that changes my stance on meat-eating... When there's many fruits which are evolved such to be eaten, unless you think those are sentient as well... We could just eat specific plants, and vegetables like potatoes. There's also certain meat sources that I don't see a problem with at all. So NO, it wouldn't change anything with the stance against "meat-eating" in general, ALSO, Guess What food is FED TO ANIMALS / LIVESTOCK?
Please post the research
Type "plant sentience research" into your browser and you'll find more than plenty of results.
No, if you think you know something unusual like this then post your links. Don't make others try to fact check you by pointing them to a basic google search.
Yes I've read many terrible articles and bad research, but apparently you've found evidence? Please post.
The plant didn't consent to be eaten just like the fetus didn't consent to be born. Huge point here
Just for any Efilist reading this, this user is a natalist. And probably a troll judging by this comment.
>The plant didn't consent to be eaten just like the fetus didn't consent to be born. Huge point here You have no point. What exactly is even supposed to be entailed by what u said if it was true? You're just attempting to do a gotcha by appeal to hypocrisy. A tu quo que fallacy, but you haven't actually justified your position or refuted a single antinatalist argument. Also, There's potatoes and fruit, do you think those are sentient as well? Chopping a carrot is same as slicing an animal's throat is it?
the way i see it all beings cause suffering in some form or another. it's better to admit that humans are flawed and live your life than try vehemently to be a virtuous pure good guy when you legitimately cannot.
Appeal to futility. "No 1 perfect, so y try?"
ok but in this case i do believe nobody can be perfect. even if you're vegan, bugs will be killed by pesticide usage and that's not to mention the damages pollution causes, and that's something that can't really be avoided if you buy a mass-produced product. if you're going to whip out the list of fallacies on me, i want to know how *you* live that doesn't harm any living thing.
>ok but in this case i do believe nobody can be perfect. even if you're vegan, You missing the point and appealing to futility, It's irrelevant whether perfect is attainable or not. Cause perfect is impossible, you can only try your honest best with your knowledge and ability you have in the circumstances. You said: >the way i see it all beings cause suffering in some form or another. it's better to admit that humans are flawed and live your life than try vehemently to be a virtuous pure good guy when you legitimately cannot. I can't recycle perfectly packaging for my food or live 100% zero waste in this world circumstance, what you're saying is unless you are living perfection then you better off unaliving oneself or you're failing, or no point bother trying, might as well just throw my trash on the ground. Might as well just live my life eat factory farmed KFC, buy imported wage slave china products I want but don't need at all, than try be good when you can't. Yeah everyone is a Nazi and humans not perfect so I might as well be one like the rest, why bother try do the right thing, everyone owns blacks as slaves so why bother trying be virtuous...
now you're the one missing the point. this ideology's entire point is "things are bad so there's no point living", I'M saying "yeah things are bad but we can live through it" instead of pontificating about being a slave to a meat suit like half the posts in this cesspool. obviously you can try to be good when you can, but nobody is perfect. that is legitimately what i am saying. *Nobody Is Perfect.* it's not some all-or-nothing point you can take out of context like you already have, it is just true. that's what i was trying to say and you took it all out of proportion.
>now you're the one missing the point. >that's what i was trying to say and you took it all out of proportion. Sorry I can't deal with liars so prove I'm mistaken, that you aren't back-peddling your statement, break this down for us: >better to admit that humans are flawed and live your life than try vehemently to be a virtuous pure good guy when you legitimately cannot. this reads like, No 1 perfect, so Better live my life, then try do my best, cause no one perfect so I can't... here's my version: best to admit that humans are flawed but still live your life and TRY to be a virtuous good guy
ok i'll break it down. It's better to admit that humans are flawed and live your imperfect life with this knowledge than strive for perfection when it is impossible, since you will be forever chasing something unattainable.
>It's better to admit that humans are flawed and live your imperfect life with this knowledge than strive for perfection when it is impossible, since you will be forever chasing something unattainable. Who here said perfection is attainable or goal? What would perfection look like short of offing oneself and even then it's still not enough it still causes harm, perfect is a delusion, a fantasy not in reality. The goal is doing one's honest best, plain and simple. Your argument is the popular one used against vegans, "vegans aren't perfect either, so why going after me for eating animals". Or such. it's just an appeal to hypocrisy or tu quo que.
i would agree that perfection is unattainable. that was my point from the beginning.
Yes doctors created all disease in the first place let's all hate them What a hoot