explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

Abscessed Teeth, A Delinquent Grunt, And Sunlight

steve godfreyApr 6, 2020, 1:03:50 AM
thumb_upthumb_down

Engaging SHD's stunted "intellectual" capacity exemplifies Bill Murray's adage, "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person". Yet it's vital we uproot and dispense with rotten nonsense like abscessed teeth. No matter how unpleasant a task it is, the decay will spread if they aren't extracted roots and all. So, bear with me while I plaster on a grimace and plow through this shit one more time.


IMPOSSIBILITY OF CONSENT

Here's SHD's refutation of the following assertion: "It's impossible to get consent before bringing someone into existence":

(37s) "In response to me showing that it was a double standard and also begging the question fallacy when he (He's referring to Gary Mosher, but these are the same points he always raises against the assertion no matter who articulates it) puts forward the impossibility of consent as being a solid argument for antinatalism and efilism, you could just ask him, okay well, "Do you have a value for their consent?". You're not getting it either. You don't get their consent either. So that's a double standard. It's consent and not consent. There's no consent being asked for and you're claiming that your consent is the issue... (1m57s) It's a double standard to put that argument forward and then also simultaneously it's a begging the question fallacy and even if you go farther into the argument past this double standard you still don't get anywhere. You can't say that I'm giving it short shrift. It's already been completely crushed. So after I crush this though in multiple ways, as I just did in the last 15 seconds, and then also simultaneously even if we grant it past that point it fails in the middle and later in the argument as well. Can't get the consent of the animals. Can't get the consent of people that are burning alive in a building. Are you going to ask for their consent whether or not you should go and run into the building and save them? Should we be doing that every single time? Is not getting the consent of another person always a bad thing? No it's not. So it fails in the middle even if granted past this beginning stage and it doesn't have to be granted past the beginning stage."

I can't make heads or tails of that. Calling it word salad is a kindness beyond my capacity. "It's impossible to get consent before bringing someone into existence" isn't an argument. It's a premise in support of a conclusion (Premise 4). It's either correct or it isn't. Either it is or it isn't impossible to get consent before bringing someone into existence. If you agree, the discourse proceeds on that basis. Of course anyone's free to assert that it is, or it might be, possible to get consent before bringing someone into existence, and if that's you, the floor is yours. But all this nonsense about double standards and begging the question is immaterial gibberish.

The only sliver of pyrite worth responding to (not because it warrants a response but because it's so painfully wrongheaded) is, "Is not getting the consent of another person always a bad thing?". He answers, "No it's not". The correct answer, however, is "Not getting the consent of another person isn't always a "bad" thing, but whether it's "good" or "bad" depends on the matter at hand" (I feel my shoulders tensing as I write that, imagining the million and one qualifiers I have to attach to make that make sense. But it's enough for now). SHD is trying to make the point that consent isn't relevant because it isn't universally applicable in every conceivable situation, into which I amicably inquire, "What in the goddam fuck are you on about?".

We first need to determine what the matter at hand is. Once that's determined, then the discussion turns to determining whether getting the consent of another person is "good" or "bad" vis-à-vis that matter.

As I explain here (Section 6.i.1), "Consent attaches to exposure to inevitable harm. It doesn't attach to being brought into existence. The position being argued isn't procreation is unethical because it's impossible to get consent before bringing someone into existence. The position being argued (in a nutshell) is non-consensual exposure to inevitable harm is unethical, and as procreation always results in non-consensual inevitable exposure to harm, procreation is therefore unethical.

So, the next step is determining whether getting the consent of another person is "good" or "bad" vis-à-vis inevitable exposure to harm. In other words, Is it ethical or unethical to non-consensually expose people to inevitable harm?. This moves the discussion on to how much weight one gives to individual sovereignty. TLDR, the less you lean towards individual sovereignty, the less inclined you'll be to agree that it's unethical to non-consensually expose people to inevitable harm. The more you lean towards individual sovereignty, the more inclined you'll be to agree that it's unethical to non-consensually expose people to inevitable harm (Section 6.ii.1.3).

How many times do I have to explain this to this fucken illiterate bozo looking fuck before the synapses start firing in his balding wee head? Then again, I should check my expectations. I am after all dealing with someone who boasts, "I hate reading books. It sucks. There's no rational reason to do it. (Source)"; "Reading is just a waste of time." (Source); "Let's face it, this formal logic thing is very convoluted and fucken, quite frankly it's silly as fuck." (Source)"; "What is the point of sitting down and reading a fucking book?... Books are a complete fucking waste of time... Bookworms are dumb... Those are the people that are always the dumbest, they are so bad at debating, so bad at articulating their thoughts, they can't think critically." (Source)"... but I digress...

SHD is like a delinquent grunt who runs out far beyond the theater perimeter, shoots off his ammo, and triumphantly proclaims: "Hey look everyone! I'm vanquishing the enemy! I'm a war hero! Praise me!". Both armies stare at him in perplexity as if to say, "What the hell is wrong with you? The battle is here, not there. There aren't any enemies where you're standing. You're shooting phantoms."

Instead of returning home a brave and honorable warrior, he ends up outcast as a cowardly incompetent who ran from where the real battles took place.

[ Please refer to the footnote at the bottom of the page for another excerpt exposing the repugnant degree of disintellect in play here. ]


NAME THE WELLBEING

Okay, moving on. Next up in SHD's clownworld is something he calls Name The Wellbeing (NTW). I've already covered this to some extent, starting with my first SHD takedown, but I'd like to explain further how the element of consent has the same effect on NTW as a direct hit tsunami has on the cooling systems of a nuclear power plant.

SHD asserts NTW as a foolproof device for revealing the hypocrisy of his interlocutor's pronatal world view by inquiring into his/her values. Rather, it's a bizarro bad faith bastardization of Socratic method purposed for nothing more than squeezing people into his own little gotcha rat maze.

Here (4m6s) he runs through 2 core NTW questions which I'll split into A & B sections: (A) "You ask them "Do you think that there's a wellbeing being derived from having your toe run over by a car and totally crushed, your whole foot crushed?". If they answer Yes that's really absurd. So you could just throw it out right on that. If they answer No then you move to the next question which is just (B) "Can you name the well-being that is not derived from a pain?", and whatever they name just point to how it's addiction and you're addicted to that thing. It's a compulsion. It's just filling in an issue, preventing an issue of some kind, or solving an issue of some kind. That's what all the wellbeings are made out of, okay. For example love would be an addiction to alleviate loneliness etc. Been through a bunch of these already we'll give another example just for good measure here. Eating would be an addiction."

A.1 The question is referencing a specific situation but it doesn't contain all the information required to elicit an answer. To start with, does you refer to the interlocutor or is it used in the general sense to refer to any non specific individual? SHD will most likely clarify that it refers to his interlocutor. Okay, so now the interlocutor inquires, "I don't know. Why did the car run over my foot? If my wife and daughter were kidnapped and I was told that the only way I would ever see them again is by letting them crush my foot with a car, then getting them back would be a derived wellbeing. What if I caused the injury for the purpose of qualifying for disability payments and an early pension but I didn't end up qualifying? A wellbeing wouldn't be derived in that case. What if it was accidental but it lead to me writing a bestseller about my rehab experiences? What if it was a stupid bet I made with my friend after downing a few too many beers, and I won/lost the bet?". Consent and outcome play pivotal roles in each alternative scenario. In fact the question can't be adequately answered unless at least an outcome is known. Consent is important because together with outcome comparative analyses can be undertaken to determine wellbeing or otherwise. Consider the early pension example:

i) What if I caused the injury for the purpose of qualifying for disability payments and an early pension and I got my desired outcome?

ii) What if I caused the injury for the purpose of qualifying for disability payments and an early pension and I didn't get my desired outcome?

iii) What if it was an accident and I qualified for disability payments and an early pension?

iv) What if it was an accident and I didn't qualify for disability payments and an early pension?

Knowing outcome is indispensable, and knowing consent is almost as vital.

A.2 SHD needs a No answer to keep everything on script, so he's crafted the question to increase the likelihood of that happening (he concedes this here). This is bad faith inquiry. Instead of "Do you think that there's a wellbeing being derived from having your toe run over by a car and totally crushed, your whole foot crushed?", the question should be "Is it ever possible for someone to derive a wellbeing from having their toe run over by a car and totally crushed, their whole foot crushed?". The purpose of Socratic inquiry isn't to push an interlocutor towards a predetermined outcome. That's bad faith. The purpose is to draw out and explore ideas following where they lead. That's good faith. SHD's problem is that if he asks good faith questions he runs the risk of getting answers that make it impossible for him to navigate to his desired outcome, thus exposing NTW for the scam it is.

For a real life example of this in action, SHD disputes that a wellbeing can ever be derived from evisceration. I challenged him on this making it clear that if any wellbeing can be derived, then he'd be obliged to concede that he's wrong. I invited him to sustain his position with reference to the Japanese custom of seppuku, from which certain wellbeings can in fact be derived. So far he hasn't responded, such is his wont when confronted by questions he knows lead to his positions being laid to waste.

B "Can you name the wellbeing that is not derived from a pain?" is an age old conundrum that has occupied philosophers for millennia. SHD's reason for asking this question hearkens back to what he describes as an axiom: "Causing pain is bad and preventing pain is good". From this he extrapolates that procreation is wrong because it causes pain whereas not procreating prevents pain from ever happening in the first place.

But that isn't an axiom. It's an assertion requiring justification. He needs to be able to answer such questions as, "Why is causing pain bad and preventing pain good?", "Is causing pain always bad and is preventing pain always good?", "What do you mean by "bad" and "good"?". Such lines of inquiry will eventually touch on consent at some point, throwing a spanner in the works. For example "If someone consents to experiencing pain, is that bad?", "If someone doesn't consent to pain being prevented, is that good?". Pain (used as an exemplar for every kind of harm) on its own isn't enough to justify the claim that pain is bad and the mere fact of pain isn't enough to trigger ethical concerns. If you see me cutting someone's leg with a knife, and that's all the information you have, you don't know enough to make a determination if what I'm doing is ethical or not. I'm definitely causing him pain, but am I attacking him (no consent), or am I removing a bullet (consent)? Whether someone does or doesn't / can or can't consent to pain needs to be known before being able to determine ethicality - before being able to claim causing pain is bad and preventing pain is good - before being able to determine whether or not it's of any ethical consequence if wellbeings can only be derived from pains.


Consent is to SHD what sunlight is to vampires. His primary objection against inconsensualism and his NTW, everything he stakes his name on, dissolve into dust in light of consent. It terrifies him.



[ Footnote: After publishing I came across this pile of excrement. I couldn't fit it within the main text without disrupting the flow but I had to include it. This unmitigable lunacy has to be preserved in writing otherwise I doubt anyone could ever believe an adult human who speaks English as a first language could ever be capable of stringing this much mess together:

(27m12s) "The word impossible and the word consent are not the same things and they're not justified by the same things. That's what we're dealing with here. If we're dealing with a logical statement of words that can be separated and what not, I would just ask you do you think that the word impossible and the word consent are the same things or justified by the same things, and no they're not. They're not either, okay. Effectively what he's saying is, and what he's implying, underlying all these things, is that he has a value for consent and he doesn't have a value for consent. So when he says later on that he doesn't like when other people tell him what to do and he thinks that other people don't like being told what to do he's in contradiction of this because he's telling them he knows what to do for them. Hmkay? So you can't put forward consent and be in objection and not objection of consent and think you're going to be coherent in some way shape or form. You're going to be coherent to people that are morons or aren't paying attention. So what I put forward in the VeganGains debates for example was consideration instead. Like you can't consider. Like for example, and it was just to frame the idea of the argument so I put forward the question, "Do you think that there are courts of unborn children?", not "Do you think there are courts of unborn children consenting to be born or asking to born?". Not that. That's not what I said in the VeganGains debate. I put forward that, "Do you think there are courts of unborn children?", for a nice frame just to show people that we can't consider them. Okay? Consider is a much different, more precise word than consent which means ask permission of which you're not doing..."

This is one of the most phenomenal things I've ever heard. Until now I had no idea bullshit could be stacked so high. He's rejecting the assertion on the basis impossible and consent are different words. I'm very rarely speechless but that floors me. He also concedes there aren't courts of unborn children. That means he must be compelled to agree that it's impossible to get consent before bringing someone into existence. Then out of nowhere he introduces a new angle, now claiming he just wants to use a different word. His consent substitute is consider which he posits "is a much different, more precise word than consent". This is idiocy because the reason for considering someone with regard to determining the ethicality of inevitable exposure to harm is to determine the granting or withholding of consent. As there isn't anyone/thing to consider it's impossible to determine the granting or withholding of consent. Consent is still the core issue and we're right back where we started. Furthermore insisting that "It's impossible to get consent before bringing someone into existence" is begging the question and a double standard while simultaneously insisting that "It's impossible to consider someone before bringing them into existence" doesn't fall foul of those same objections is a straitjacket not even Houdini would have attempted.

His reason for introducing this substitute word idea is because he knows damn well how much of a hole he's dug for himself but he's incapable of admitting when he goes wrong. I wouldn't be surprised if we got to the point where he says he was wrong about all this while also being right at the same time. ]


This is Part 3 of a series:

1 "NameTheWellbeing" Is A Super Human Dunce

2 CTD and the Stork Express

4 Of Question Begging

-------------------------------------------------

I edit and update my posts so if you want to critique them I recommend screenshots or a site like archive.is to mitigate against your efforts being made redundant or accusations that I change what I write to avoid criticism. (Last update: 2020, November 19, 2020, 08:59, Tokyo time)

There's an infinitude of online content, so thank you for choosing my tiny corner of the web. If you found value in what I wrote here, please link, sub, like, remind, boost, comment. Tokens & BTC gratefully accepted: 1Mw4ywTGFSQFRYEBo7hT62ZUsPxxrg9JgW

Switch to App
Minds Take back control of your social media!