Total posts: 857
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Savant is schooling you on every point lol.
No wonder you troll so much. You literally can't outdebate anyone on this site.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Sounds like you've just ended up with laundry...
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Hee haw, you jack ass, or jennyan adult female jackass is a jenny or jennet
Your mind is so polluted that you simply can't stop thinking about asses. It was bad enough that you went on about vibrators before, but wow. You're a real grotty old man LOL.
And that's not even to mention the laundry sniffing you do...
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why do you keep sniffing your wife's laundry? Why do you keep mentioning my ass?
Dirty old man.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
There's nothing to give up. You've confirmed you're a laundry sniffer by failing to deny it, despite having many opportunities to do so.Does your wife know that you sniff her laundry? That's a pretty creepy thing to do.Is this how people talk in your loser country? You could give up being a racist loser with a dead end job and no husband and no children, and try to do something with your life. You could try to shed some fat off your fat ass
You should get permission from your wife, before you sniff her laundry (you clearly haven't). I hope you haven't sniffed other people's, too. Have you?
You really like talking about my ass, don't you? You've mentioned it at least a dozen times. You clearly fantasize about how "fat" my ass is. Is picturing the size of my ass helping you imagine sniffing my laundry? Don't tell your wife (but you should be fine not telling because you're well practiced with that).
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You're a confirmed laundry sniffer lol.Give it up toots, you’re a loser. You are grasping at straws.
There's nothing to give up. You've confirmed you're a laundry sniffer by failing to deny it, despite having many opportunities to do so.
Does your wife know that you sniff her laundry? That's a pretty creepy thing to do.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You're a confirmed laundry sniffer lol.
Maybe it's tik tok for you in taking some time to change your ways, sniffer.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No one, from any place of the political spectrum, is agreeing with you in this thread.
Literally no one.
That includes your fellow progressives.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why do you sniff your wife's laundry?
Created:
-->
@Sidewalker
Most states would gladly trade thier white supremacists for migrants all day long, that would upgrade state in every category.
wHiTe SuPrEeEeEeEeEmAcIsts
8/10 original and quality troll. Very hard not to respond to.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Damn lol.
Conservatives, Libertarians and Progressives are all arguing against you -- that's how wrong you are.
Almost as embarrassing as you being exposed as a laundry sniffer xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I sniff my own laundry, so I dont need yours.
I'm happy that you're able to do that to your own, because you certainly wouldn't be getting mine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Most of the people dont have morality
This isn't a thread about whether "most people" are moral. It's a thread about what is moral. It's a thread about whether it's a good idea to bring people into existence.
Please stop attempting to derail the thread.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
The thread isn't about whether there is "incentive" as to having children. It's about whether it's morally correct to have children.
Children being expensive isn't even a serious deterrent anyway. If I thought bringing children into existence was a moral good, I'd gladly foot the cost to bring a lot of good into existence. 'It's too expensive' sounds like an NPC excuse to not rock the boat too much, because telling people they're morally bankrupt for having children is certainly going to ruffle feathers.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
Nope. No faithI accept equally, the idea that everything could be purposeless.In so much as everything that occurs has no greater purpose.
You're just using a lot of words to say 'I don't know whether humans have a purpose or not'.
You could have just said that.
Why run with these ideas.Why indeed.Isn't that just what we do, especially here on Debateart.Though 95% of my time is spent either thinking about mundane day to day stuff or asleep.
No, no.
You "run" with these ideas because you don't know. That's what you've clarified above.
It's fine to not know, but don't try and make it out to be some convoluted, mysterious stance that is so enigmatic.
As for life.Well, I would suggest that biological function generally provides us with purpose whether we like it or not.
When people talk about "purpose", they almost always mean a metaphysical purpose.
There's no higher purpose in biological function -- that's what I'm saying.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, calling me subteach is hilarious considering what I actually do, but I won't give him doxxing fuel since he seems like a left wing terrorist.
Yeah smart move.
The far left love to use personal information to ruin people's lives. That why he kept asking me where I live.
FYI he 100% has sniffed his wife's laundry in the past. I gave him every chance to deny it, but he wouldn't. Fanchick the laundry sniffer lol
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
Fanchick the laundry sniffer is basically a troll.
He's quite bad at actual debate and arguments, so he links to MSNBC and other left-wing news-outlets to make his arguments for him, or he resorts to personal attacks (frequently), or he becomes a Grammar Nazi.
He doesn't have substantive arguments, and when you provide serious responses, he ignores them and pivots onto something else.
We see this when your posts become too much for him to handle, and that's usually when he resorts to calling you a substitute teacher etc. Very predictable and pretty worthless.
Created:
Here are some miscellaneous thoughts about antinatalism that I don't think currently deserve a thread on their own:
- Benatarian asymmetry can be rejected because the absence of pleasure is bad, not 'not bad'. It's bad that a potential person doesn't exist to experience pleasure. It's true that we don't look at empty space and say, 'gee, I wish there was a human experiencing pleasure there'. However, it also true that potential parents can think of a potential child and realize that not having that child come into existence to experience pleasure is bad. It's bad when a person doesn't get to experience pleasure when someone could.
- The pain of childbirth experienced by the mother should also be factored into the morality of childbirth (barely anyone seems to factor this in -- thought it was worth a mention)
- The 'optimism bias' argument antinatalists like to run is actually a benefit for pronatalism. If people are delusional about how good their life is (i.e. optimistically biased), and that delusional doesn't have any real world impacts (when would you be punished for liking your life too much?), then it's actually good that people are delusional about how good their lives are because they feel better than they would otherwise.
- Life could be unimaginably good in the future through transhumanism/virtual reality/posthumanism/augmented reality etc. It's possible that technology like wireheads or Robert Nozick's experience machine make life so enjoyable, whilst reducing negative affect by circumventing natural human biology, that life indisputably becomes worth living for everyone. The moral issue is that in the meantime, if antinatalism is correct, we're sacrificing the lives of current humans in order to reach this unimaginable good -- that's morally problematic
- People rarely think about their children as old adults getting ravaged by cancer and watching all their friends die. Old age is pretty brutal and that needs to be factored in
Created:
Posted in:
Without concretely proving it, antinatalism appears to have the framework to be correct, without having all the concrete required to fill the framework:
1a) There is always a negative affect before a positive affect, in regards to all humans as a whole (not necessarily to individual humans -- one person's gain can come at the expense of others). Happiness, pleasure, joy etc. (positive affect) are the result of relieving oneself/people of sadness, pain, sorrow etc. (negative affect).
For example, we don't feel relief in drinking unless we were previously thirsty. You can drink without being thirsty, but you won't experience positive affect in that. It's the preceding negative affect which allows for the creation of the positive affect.
Furthermore, when someone is relieved, boredom slowly creeps in (which is negative affect). So, even if you achieve your goals and relieve yourself of the negative affect, you'll soon be hampered by boredom! And you know what is required to counteract boredom? A goal (i.e. something that produces negative affect). So, both achievement of goals AND working towards goals creates negative affect (and only offers the chance of positive affect).
You can further compound this negativity by the existence of comparison, of which makes positive affect have a limited ceiling. In other words, because you can compare your lot in life to others, even if in isolation you would experience positive affect, you may experience negative affect if you see your lot in life as less than others (and will be particularly aggrieved if you deem this difference unfair). An example of this: people prefer being objectively poorer if they are relatively richer compared to those around them -- not everyone can be relatively richer than everyone else around them Is more always better?: A survey on positional concerns - ScienceDirect
Thus, negative affect is guaranteed whereas positive affect is not.
Therefore, there will always be more instances of negative affect experienced than instances of positive affect experienced.
The question now becomes: despite having greater instances of negative affect, do they outweigh the fewer instances of positive affect?
1b) Per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect
Albeit, this is an exercise in estimation, as we cannot (currently) measure and compare ever instance of positive and negative affect to have been experienced by humans (it's framework without the concrete).
But, nonetheless, we can estimate.
What do you think of drinking water? If you could flip a coin to (heads) experience your quenched thirst or (tails) to experience dehydration, would you flip the coin? According to current loss aversion theories, people would prefer not to flip the coin because they don't like risking their status quo Higgins_et_al-2018-Journal_of_Consumer_Psychology.pdf (columbia.edu) . In fact, people would be far more willing to take risks to avoid dehydration, than they would to gain a more pleasant drinking experience (perhaps a sugary beverage instead of water). Hence, we have the backing of research to suggest that per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect.
Since per unit, negative affect outweighs positive affect, and from argument 1a we saw that there are more instances of negative affect, it follows that there is a larger value of negative affect than positive affect in life, thus human life shouldn't be brought into existence.
2) Humans are totally unable to consent to life. This problem is amplified by the entirety of the arguments above, but it's also a problem in itself.
It's morally questionable to impose upon people serious conditions (in this instance: life) without their permission. Even if you think it's a good idea, and even if the life ends up being a good one, there is guaranteed risk involved (e.g. cancer, disease, childbirth complications, death etc.) which parents impose without consent.
It would be like someone using your money to go to the casino. Would you like it if someone did that? We already know they're playing against the odds (see my above argument 1a + 1b). Even if the person were to double your money, they still used your money without your permission. They still risked your money without asking you first. This is analogous to bringing humans into existence -- no consent beforehand.
Thus, parents gambling with the wellbeing of others without their consent is immoral. Therefore, childbirth is immoral.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Lol you're too stupid to realize you shot yourself in the foot with this OP, fanchick.
Your kind of people (libtards) WANT migrants. They want more various types of people because diversity is a strength.
You're implying that receiving migrants is a bad thing because you're attempting to retaliate. That's the opposite of what your kind argues, you massive idiot xD
Maybe you should spend more time thinking your positions through, instead of sniffing your wife's laundry.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
All of human behaviour can be partly explained by genetics.
We agree then :)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
As I clearly stated, I do not believe.I Run with Ideas.
Okay. So, it's a kind of faith you have.
Why do you have faith in the idea that there is purpose to life?
GOD principle represents a purpose relative to material development.GOD principle could still be applicable in a non-purposeful material development scenario.
Why "run" with these ideas?
Coming to a conclusion, or conclusions, or variable conclusions is just an internal electro-chemical processing trait.
Yes, that's the biological function.
So Kaitlyn appears to affirmatively conclude that everything has no purpose....So how do they come by this conclusion?
No, I'm saying that there doesn't appear to be a reason to believe that life has purpose. That's different from saying that there is no purpose.
Created:
-->
@hey-yo
C) although anyone from any background can and do commit crimes, the correlation should show us that the main influencers in crime rates are the poor & poverty stricken people.D) Does this mean there is a cause? Although I never stated my position before, I will be clear now. Poverty is a cause. A cause is a personal decision.
The issue with this step if you've gone from poverty being correlated with crime (which is true), but you've taken that correlation and morphed it into a causation.
100% of criminals were breathing when they committed crime, so that literally couldn't correlate higher, but that doesn't mean breathing is a cause of crime.
Also, I haven't found a study (or meta-study) that shows poverty correlates with crime at anything higher than 0.25 (weak correlation).
Meanwhile, I've shown (to someone else) that race is the best predictor of crime (using multivariate analysis): Blacks far more likely to commit crimes against Whites and Hispanics than the inverse (debateart.com) . This produces causation as genes are partly responsible for behaviors, hence the predictive validity when testing for these variables (i.e. having the Warrior gene results in higher crime rates).
There have been plenty of people to say they commited a crime because they do not have x or are dealing with poverty. I don't have a survey to express this. Thats ok. I dont think I'll be changing minds if I did.
I think your big issue is that you assume all people have good justification for their actions. Some people do, most don't, especially people who commit crimes.
You don't have the survey because it's not true. Unless you have like a super small sample size of 10, you're going to quickly find people committing crimes are just garbage people for no reason who happen to be poor (hence the weak correlation of no more than 0.25). If they have any reasoning, they're far more likely to have 'rape-and-revenge' nonsense narratives of, 'the government stole from us' or, 'White people owe us this', rather than extensive, valid, desperate reasons about their dire poverty requiring drastic measures.
People with good genetics (high I.Q, high impulse control etc.) who are poor typically won't commit crimes. Unless they get unlucky, they'll typically find ways to get out of poverty.
Also, a survey isn't going to help that much because people often just do things and have ad hoc reasoning as to why (particularly low impulse control people, of who are going to be the ones committing crimes). They can say it was x or y, but I doubt any of them will factor in their genetic makeup into their explanation (and how could they?) A lot of these criminals are just doing what their genes tell them to do without much thought at all.
F) no evidence provided to suggest poverty is not a cause.
This is a negative proof fallacy. It's not logically valid.
Created:
-->
@Reece101
What do you mean? like war crimes and genocide and that?
I'm talking about standard violent crimes, like armed robbery and assault.
Do you ever wonder if those crimes can be partly explained by genetics?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
I just like to run with the idea of a purposeful universe these days. No God necessary by the way.....As in a magical being. Though you might catch me referring to a GOD principle.
I don't understand why you'd believe this, particular without belief in in God (or other variations).
Is your GOD principle belief in an undefined God?
If not, I'll I'm reading from you is, 'I believe in purpose just because I feel like it'.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
You can pick one if you like.But you won't be able to substantiate it.
I don't see a reason to believe that human existence is objectively purposeful and necessary. Therefore, I won't believe either.
It's possible that both are true (albeit it appears very unlikely), but again, I don't see a reason to believe either.
So, again, I don't see how it's an equal choice between believing both or neither. One requires a lot of proof that I haven't seen. The other doesn't require anything. Taking the stance of the latter is far easier and simpler.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You got caught as a laundry sniffer :D
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You're defs red like a tomato.Defs. Lol
Mhm
What did you sniff? Her matching flowered bra and underwear? xD
I'm laughing so hard at you right now hahahahah
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Haha, you have sniffed your wife's laundry :D
You're defs as red as a tomato.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Also, you still won't answer the question: have you ever sniffed your wife's laundry?You never asked
I've asked several times already.
The fact that you won't deny it gives us the answer, laundry sniffer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
your wife's laundry?Hey, you spelled it right this time.
I didn't spell it wrong. If you think otherwise, show us.
Also, you still won't answer the question: have you ever sniffed your wife's laundry?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Everyone wears "used" clothes, or do you just throw clothes out after you've used them once?Well you said old clothes, from highschool [sic] In America, people don’t have to keep their clothes for years and years. We just by new ones and there are no shortages of basic necessities.
Yeah some of them are from high school. So what?
Normal people throw out clothes once they start getting holes in them or when they have irremovable stains.
I guess you just like to waste your money.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You're probably lying.Oh, I made that up months ago in the hopes of impressing all the losers I was going to meet on this site.
Knew it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Why would you need to control for variables between individuals when you're only testing 1 person?But that doesn’t explain how you know I sniff my wife’s laundry. (Or wive’s laundry as you said because you’re a dummy)
Never said "wive's" (wtf??)
Anyway, you won't deny it: have you even sniffed your wife's laundry?
Does she wear big granny panties? Do they smell like the flowers that are printed on them? xD LOOOL
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You keep calling me fat despite me fitting into older, smaller clothing.Oh, you mean used clothes, like for the poor. Is that how things are in your country?
They're my old clothes. I don't see why I should throw them out when they're fine, and I actually like the colors/prints/patterns.
Everyone wears "used" clothes, or do you just throw clothes out after you've used them once?
Uh no I'm thinking of you.But then how did I get two children?
You're probably lying.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Remember: we don't need studies for sample sized of 1.Oh, studies are required for certain sample sizes? Or sized as you said [sic] Tell me more.
Why would you need to control for variables between individuals when you're only testing 1 person?
Lol.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You've clearly never seen a woman's body in your life lol,You are thinking of your virgin pen pal, Mr. SubTeach aka GreyParrot.
Uh no I'm thinking of you.
You keep calling me fat despite me fitting into older, smaller clothing.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Yeah healthy is attractive.Hmm, just like sturdy is attractive
Is that why you keep imagining me with a "fat ass" and small breasts?
Make sense now -- literal fantasy of yours.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I don't need life advice from a guy who sniffs people's underwear.Me? How do you know that? What study do you have to cite?
Remember: we don't need studies for sample size of 1.
Besides, I said you have sniffed your wife's earlier, and you didn't deny that. Pretty sure you do.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You think guys want women who are an unhealthy weight?Guys want women at a weight that is attractive, not useful for surviving a famine.
Yeah healthy is attractive.
You've clearly never seen a woman's body in your life lol, hence why you keep calling my ass fat.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
What body image issues?You seem to be very concerned about your body size and are obsessed with not getting larger as you get older.
Well yeah, I don't want to be harassed by old men who are going to call me a "fat ass" if I get too big.
Unfortunately, there’s nothing you can do about it and that’s why you need to hurry up and find a mate before your fast approaching expiration date.
I don't need life advice from a guy who sniffs people's underwear.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Healthy is ideal, sniffer.Not from a guys point of view, toots. No wonder you are unattached.
What lol
You think guys want women who are an unhealthy weight?
Bahahahaha
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
When I ask for studies, it's in regards to macro-societal phenomena which are impossible to accurately capture without studies that control for relevant variables.Impossible? That sounds like an opinion? Was that your opinion?
How do you control for relevant variables for 1000s-1,000,000s of people without a study?
Please tell us. You'll save universities many, many expenses.
especially from some young girl with obvious body image issues.
What body image issues?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
That proves I am in the healthy limit.No. I said “ideal” weight, not healthy weight. Pay attention dingy or you’re going to be single forever.
Healthy is ideal, sniffer.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You want a study on my clothing size?Well according to you unless there is a study to back it up everything is just a useless opinion. If a doctor said you were at a healthy weight, or a fashion designer said you could fit in teen sized clothing, without a study to back it up, it’s all meaningless. I mean, what do they know?
No, silly.
When I ask for studies, it's in regards to macro-societal phenomena which are impossible to accurately capture without studies that control for relevant variables.
We don't need a study to test for a sample size of 1 xD
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Long way to go to what?The ideal height to weight ratio for a chickI'm 5'10. 138 lbs is well within the healthy limit.healthy limit.healthy limit? Guys don’t care about your health toots. They care about what you look like.
You criticized me for having a "long way to go" in regards to my ideal height to weight ratio.
I stated my biometric stats (of which are within the healthy limit).
That proves I am in the healthy limit.
You disproved your statement of "guys don't care about your health" when you criticized me (wrongly) for not having a healthy height to weight ratio, thus proving you do care.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I've actually proved I've been thin all of my life :)No you haven’t.
I can't have been fat if I fit teen clothes.
And you didn’t offer a single study to back it up.
You want a study on my clothing size?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I can fit my older clothes. That proves my ass isn't fat.Maybe, just maybe, you’ve been fat all your life.
Teen clothing only goes up to a certain size. If you're fat, you simply can't fit into it, even if you're still a teenager.
I've actually proved I've been thin all of my life :)
Long way to go to what?The ideal height to weight ratio for a chick
I'm 5'10. 138 lbs is well within the healthy limit.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I guess my ass isn't fat after all.Because you lost 4 lbs? Not likely. You’ve got a long way to go toots
Long way to go to what? I can fit my older clothes. That proves my ass isn't fat.
How many people can say that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
I'm 138 lbs now and they fit fineWow, you’ve lost 4 lbs in the last couple months.
Thanks for keeping track of my weight.
Is it another food shortage in your shit hole country?
Nice pivot.
You always pivot when you get proven wrong.
I guess my ass isn't fat after all.
Created: