But the whole narrative of Jesus is meant to show the annihilation of the ego. If the ego is destroyed, what then is death? Nothing. The fear of death...
Nope, I disagree. The numbers are simply not on the Republican side. In other words, this has to do with demographic facts that I see no reason to dis...
He doesn't represent the triumph of the ego, though. It's rather more the opposite. He's an anti-hero, in that he does and says the opposite of what t...
There is very little chance of a Republican winning the presidential election, so their likely obstruction will prove a futile waste of time as always...
It means just what it says; that I am likely operating under a different understanding of the term than you are. No, and for the reason I already gave...
I'm probably not. But see, I can tell from this post of yours that you are intent on arguing with me for its own sake. My intention, by contrast, was ...
This is oxymoronical. You can only poison people who exist, whether the effects are immediate or not. You can't poison or harm in any way that which d...
Look, I'm not a consequentialist, despite what appears to be your attempts here to make me one. I don't judge the moral worth of an action based on th...
It's not trivial. You can't harm the non-existent. Therefore, no wrongdoing has occurred. No, it's not. Did you really read my post above? The most co...
I'm not sure why certain people are still so obstinately confused. I'm also puzzled by how people can pontificate on all the permutations of meaning c...
No, not quite. See my latest post. My conversation with you had to do with celibacy and its relation to what one assents to in terms of anti/anatalism...
In my OP, I said it refers to "someone who claims that having children may not be wrong but is not right/justified either." It's a position of skeptic...
Did I? I thought I suggested divorcing strong and weak versions of anti-natalism, seeing as the latter does not live up to the implication of the pref...
Yes, but Michael, that's basically my point. Did you read my original post? I said I didn't feel comfortable labeling myself an anti-natalist for prec...
All definitions are stipulative and based on historical usage. Alright, but does this mean you deny any validity between the distinction in question? ...
Yes, I'm aware of the Google definition, but throughout history, to be celibate has usually meant or entailed abstaining from all sexual activity. I'd...
And one which I have granted, though your victory is only proportional to the size of your objection, which as you note, is quite small. Sometimes, to...
Is this honestly the content of your objection? Female insemination? Sure, okay, I grant this very technical exception. On the other hand, how is this...
This is actually very close to what I am saying, if not exactly what I am saying. Aha, so you don't think there is any such thing as "practical assent...
I do. Well, why do you reject it? Because that is indeed the reason for its inclusion and relevance in my labeling myself an anatalist. A celibate per...
Nor would I, and nor did I, deny such a thing. So here we agree. Perhaps, but what is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. No,...
I read them, and I thought they were adequately, nay, perfectly addressed by Soylent, so as it happens I too don't feel the need to go back. Nor do I ...
Only according to you. Most everyone else who has commented seems to have understood what I meant. Of course, this still doesn't mean I was clear, and...
Excellent comment. I've long thought about just this very thing. Here too, though, I would answer this question by distinguishing between a notional o...
No, for once again, these desires are not pent up but rather redirected towards other things or dissipated to such an extent that they no longer troub...
I'm not sure how exactly you became so thoroughly confused about my position, but I think Soylent has admirably explained it to you, and I thank him f...
There are two points you miss here: 1) based on my distinction, they practically assent to anti-natalism (or anatalism, as I would have it), if not th...
Hehe. This reminds me St. Jerome, who reputedly said, "I praise marriage because it produces more virgins." This might be the only argument in favor o...
Thank you for clarifying. This is not quite the same notion of natural law that grounds my position. Deliberate frustration of a being's will I call w...
I see absolutely no positive value or reason to engage in sexual activity. All the possible arguments in favor of it boil down to it feeling good. I f...
I'm tempted to say this ought to be self-evident. All living things have desires they seek to fulfill. This is simply the nature of life itself. Human...
Perhaps. I wouldn't make "possible health benefits" the only or even the primary reason to be celibate, though. It's more like an added bonus, if true...
Yeah, I've seen a few Gary videos, for example. At times he seems to make some good points. At other times, he seems woefully ignorant of what he's ta...
Haha, this was more or less my impression as well, from what little I've visited of it. I think so, at least as far as I understand your question. A h...
I think that sounds right, yes. Perhaps we can make a distinction, as Kant and Schopenhauer do, between immanent and transcendent metaphysics. For the...
Yeah, that works too. Yes, I'm aware of those guys and find them very far from the position I would want to identify with. I started visiting the AN s...
The difference is that metaphysical claims are critical and religious claims non-critical. They may share the same unverifiable status, but one procee...
The claim that it is nonsense is a non-sequitur. Simply because its claims cannot be empirically verified doesn't mean they are false or meaningless, ...
Comments