Antinatalism

Fallible · **#841** by **Fallible** » Jan 11, 2016 1:53 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Fallible wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
THWOTH wrote::yawn:

Entirely agree with you.

It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you.

The membership is a load of shit. I see.

Who saying that? Oh you are. Delicious.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you

Scot Dutchy · **#842** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 11, 2016 1:55 pm

Once again you are talking shite. I did not say the membership is shite.

Sendraks · **#843** by **Sendraks** » Jan 11, 2016 1:57 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote: I did not say the membership is shite.

Scot Dutchy wrote: It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you.

Too easy.

Scot Dutchy · **#844** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 11, 2016 1:59 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote: I did not say the membership is shite.

Scot Dutchy wrote: It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you.

Too easy.

Where do I say the membership is shite?

Animavore · **#845** by **Animavore** » Jan 11, 2016 2:00 pm

This is pl0bsian argumentation. :eh:

Scot Dutchy · **#846** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 11, 2016 2:03 pm

Animavore wrote:This is pl0bsian argumentation.

Misrepresentation?

THWOTH · **#847** by **THWOTH** » Jan 11, 2016 2:17 pm

Sendraks · **#848** by **Sendraks** » Jan 11, 2016 2:22 pm

Animavore wrote:This is pl0bsian argumentation.

I know.
I mean there is pretty much only pl0bs and now Scot, who blindly refute an obvious fact when it is staring them in the face.

Pretty much everyone else caught out in the fashion would at least try to evade with "what I meant to say" rather than just flatly deny it ever happened.

Fallible · **#849** by **Fallible** » Jan 11, 2016 2:27 pm

Andrew4Handel wrote:I definitely psychologically struggle with my own parents motivation for having children which I feel like reiterating here now.

1) My mum knew my Dad had problems communicating with children before she married but went on to have six children with him

2) They believed in hell and damnation and that there children would be born corrupt sinners before they had them.

3) They weren't affectionate or positive

4) They were completely dictatorial and ignored anyone but their owns preferences.

5) They made us go to church several times a week without any choice and expected us to think act and believe exactly like them

They were allowed to do this based on the automatic right to have children.

I think there might be a case for saying maybe they shouldn't have had children, but one cannot put the genie back in the bottle. Also, I'd want to see what your siblings felt about their experience and about whether it was worth the life they have now, which I don't see how we can obtain. Certainly my view is that if you're not good with kids and you don't want to put any effort into making their lives enjoyable, it would be irresponsible to have any. However Andrew, we've been here before. Even you consider your continued life to be the best option, or you wouldn't be here.

Scot Dutchy · **#850** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 11, 2016 2:29 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Animavore wrote:This is pl0bsian argumentation.

I know.
I mean there is pretty much only pl0bs and now Scot, who blindly refute an obvious fact when it is staring them in the face.

Pretty much everyone else caught out in the fashion would at least try to evade with "what I meant to say" rather than just flatly deny it ever happened.

The obvious fact of misrepresentation?

Sendraks · **#851** by **Sendraks** » Jan 11, 2016 2:39 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
The obvious fact of misrepresentation?

It is clearly not a misrepresentation. To recap, for those with poor memories. You said.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you.

This is calling the membership of these forums shite. That is what YOU said.

That you then went on to say:

Scot Dutchy wrote:I did not say the membership is shite.

Yes. Yes you did. As the comment of yours I have quoted clearly shows that YOU did call the membership of these forums shite.

I am not, by any measure, misrepresenting you. I am accurately and fairly representing you by quoting what you said, unedited.

So back up your claim that I am misrepresenting you and back it up now Scot.

Thommo · **#852** by **Thommo** » Jan 11, 2016 2:46 pm

Andrew4Handel wrote:One of the man issues for me is that people can't choose to be born so that being born is like (if not entirely the case) being forced into existence without consent. That is not an emotive point but a technical point

It is an emotive point, even if technically true.

It is also true that where there is no person to give consent we do not require consent. You don't ask a rock before you move it off your lawn. You don't get permission in writing from your skin before you exfoliate.

Andrew4Handel wrote:It is not like an unwanted Christmas gift that you can take back to the shop or store in the attic.

Yes it is. Anyone can end their life. They can relinquish possession of it just as easily. Don't even need to wait for the shops to open. But I would caution that this might show how overextended the analogy is.

Andrew4Handel wrote:If the process of creating a life leads to this scenario of a burden of life then I don't see why a majority of peoples alleged contentment should make this a non issue.

Nobody contends it does. What they are saying is that the system is dictated by both circumstances. If person A suffers, but persons B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O and P all have good lives worth living then it doesn't unwrite person As suffering, but nor does it unwrite B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O or Ps joy.

It is an unsupported axiom that any amount of suffering always counts for more than any amount of good living/flourishing/joy/whatever you want to call the value of a positive life.

Andrew4Handel wrote:I think I mentioned elsewhere that a few people got food poisoning from Cadbury's chocolate so a large amount of stock was destroyed at great expense. They weren't allowed to argue that only two out of our million customers got salmonella and the rest experienced great pleasure.

You probably did, whilst overlooking that they were permitted to continue making and selling more chocolate. Billions and billions of bars of it.

Thommo · **#853** by **Thommo** » Jan 11, 2016 3:01 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
The obvious fact of misrepresentation?

It is clearly not a misrepresentation. To recap, for those with poor memories. You said.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you.

This is calling the membership of these forums shite. That is what YOU said.

To be fair, it doesn't. I think it heavily implies it, and I think Scot is talking a lot of shite, but that quote does not actually call the membership shite.

The prounoun "it" and the pronoun "that" do not directly have to refer to the object "the membership" appearing later in the sentence "It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you." to make sense.

For example, suppose you spent 4 hours queuing at the passport office, then when you got to the front of the line they closed up for the day, slamming the grille in your face and wasting your time. On relating this story to your friend they respond "It really is a load of shite but that is the passport office for you.", the natural sense to read the pronouns "it" and "that" is in reference to the events that happened, possibly as an exemplar of what the passport office usually does.

Scot Dutchy · **#854** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 11, 2016 3:13 pm

Thommo wrote:
Sendraks wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
The obvious fact of misrepresentation?

It is clearly not a misrepresentation. To recap, for those with poor memories. You said.

Scot Dutchy wrote:It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you.

This is calling the membership of these forums shite. That is what YOU said.

To be fair, it doesn't. I think it heavily implies it, and I think Scot is talking a lot of shite, but that quote does not actually call the membership shite.

The prounoun "it" and the pronoun "that" do not directly have to refer to the object "the membership" appearing later in the sentence "It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you." to make sense.

For example, suppose you spent 4 hours queuing at the passport office, then when you got to the front of the line they closed up for the day, slamming the grille in your face and wasting your time. On relating this story to your friend they respond "It really is a load of shite but that is the passport office for you.", the natural sense to read the pronouns "it" and "that" is in reference to the events that happened, possibly as an exemplar of what the passport office usually does.

Yep just plain misrepresentation. People should learn to read properly. I was referring the crap that certain members had written not the membership.

Sendraks · **#855** by **Sendraks** » Jan 11, 2016 3:17 pm

Thommo wrote:To be fair, it doesn't. I think it heavily implies it, and I think Scot is talking a lot of shite, but that quote does not actually call the membership shite.

The prounoun "it" and the pronoun "that" do not directly have to refer to the object "the membership" appearing later in the sentence "It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you." to make sense.

For example, suppose you spent 4 hours queuing at the passport office, then when you got to the front of the line they closed up for the day, slamming the grille in your face and wasting your time. On relating this story to your friend they respond "It really is a load of shite but that is the passport office for you.", the natural sense to read the pronouns "it" and "that" is in reference to the events that happened, possibly as an exemplar of what the passport office usually does.

Ah, so what Scot is saying is that the discussion itself is shite and that such things are to be expected from the membership.

Which isn't directly calling the membership shite, but only that such shite is to be expected of the membership.

That really isn't much of a vast improvement and nor do I see anyone being unjustified in holding the view that Scot basically called the membership "shite." And to claim he has said that, really doesn't pass muster as a misrepresentation.

laklak · **#856** by **laklak** » Jan 11, 2016 3:19 pm

What's a yummy mummy? Is it anything like a MILF?

Sendraks · **#857** by **Sendraks** » Jan 11, 2016 3:19 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:
Yep just plain misrepresentation. People should learn to read properly. I was referring the crap that certain members had written not the membership.

Perhaps write with sufficient clarity in the future, that your meaning can easily be divined. Or failing that, where you disagree with member's interpretations of your comments, take the time to explain yourself clearly without throwing a tantrum.

Thommo won't always be around to explain your posts to others and it is deeply sad in this case that you appear to be reliant on him doing so on your behalf.

You'll also note that he expressed the view that, regardless, he thinks you are talking shite.
Which you are.

Scot Dutchy · **#858** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 11, 2016 3:21 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Thommo wrote:To be fair, it doesn't. I think it heavily implies it, and I think Scot is talking a lot of shite, but that quote does not actually call the membership shite.

The prounoun "it" and the pronoun "that" do not directly have to refer to the object "the membership" appearing later in the sentence "It really is a load of shite but that is the membership for you." to make sense.

For example, suppose you spent 4 hours queuing at the passport office, then when you got to the front of the line they closed up for the day, slamming the grille in your face and wasting your time. On relating this story to your friend they respond "It really is a load of shite but that is the passport office for you.", the natural sense to read the pronouns "it" and "that" is in reference to the events that happened, possibly as an exemplar of what the passport office usually does.

Ah, so what Scot is saying is that the discussion itself is shite and that such things are to be expected from the membership.

Which isn't directly calling the membership shite, but only that such shite is to be expected of the membership.

That really isn't much of a vast improvement and nor do I see anyone being unjustified in holding the view that Scot basically called the membership "shite." And to claim he has said that, really doesn't pass muster as a misrepresentation.

No? Does is say I called the membership is shite. That is your misinterpretation. Admit it and stop weaselling out of it.
You are talking a load of crap.

Scot Dutchy · **#859** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jan 11, 2016 3:25 pm

Sendraks wrote:
Scot Dutchy wrote:
Yep just plain misrepresentation. People should learn to read properly. I was referring the crap that certain members had written not the membership.

Perhaps write with sufficient clarity in the future, that your meaning can easily be divined. Or failing that, where you disagree with member's interpretations of your comments, take the time to explain yourself clearly without throwing a tantrum.

Thommo won't always be around to explain your posts to others and it is deeply sad in this case that you appear to be reliant on him doing so on your behalf.

You'll also note that he expressed the view that, regardless, he thinks you are talking shite.
Which you are.

What he thinks is his opinion. You are purely misrepresenting me and I hope the mods take note.
What do you think you are talking on this thread a load of crap. Just like another couple of members are.
Such judgemental twaddle. You are not even a parent.

Sendraks · **#860** by **Sendraks** » Jan 11, 2016 3:25 pm

Scot Dutchy wrote:No? Does is say I called the membership is shite. That is your misinterpretation.

I stand by my interpretation of your comments. Next time make yourself clearer.

Scot Dutchy wrote: Admit it and stop weaselling out of it.

Hypocritical coming from you, the king of weaselling out of ever admitting he is wrong.

Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Who is online