The Young Turks and conspiracy theorists.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:25 pm

If the child is severely sick and unable to live a life free of suffering, then it will experience suffering, and also be a burden on the parents.
So if the bad (the disease) does not outweigh enjoying life, and the child and the parents suffer from it, and the child has not reached personhood yet, then maybe euthanasia is the more humane option. But this should be the parents' decision.

Neither Anakin's sentence nor Derived Absurdity's reply contradict this.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:36 pm

The disease/disability/etc. is not even what causes these people the most suffering more often than not.

Like forgive me if I'm assuming things about yourselves incorrectly but these arguments very much read like what privileged people imagine these lives to be like instead of what they actually are like.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:45 pm

I took Anakin's premise more along the lines of, "we're euthanizing this child because we're tired of taking care of it," and it having nothing to do with the interests of the child, because the only concern stated was that of the parents' inability to live the life they wanted. Also, age and personhood weren't really brought into it.

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Sat Oct 28, 2017 6:50 pm

BruceSmith78 wrote:I took Anakin's premise more along the lines of, "we're euthanizing this child because we're tired of taking care of it," and it having nothing to do with the interests of the child, because the only concern stated was that of the parents' inability to live the life they wanted. Also, age and personhood weren't really brought into it.

Fair enough; I have read a few of Peter Singer's works, and I brought his thoughts into the posts.
Since he's a professional writer, he can express his thoughts better than me.

maz89 · Post by **maz89** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:29 am

BruceSmith78 wrote:I took Anakin's premise more along the lines of, "we're euthanizing this child because we're tired of taking care of it," and it having nothing to do with the interests of the child, because the only concern stated was that of the parents' inability to live the life they wanted. Also, age and personhood weren't really brought into it.

This was my understanding too. "Life is not important" and "[there's nothing] intrinsically wrong with ending the lives of perfectly healthy babies" read, to me, as absurd, insensitive statements without the detailed caveats.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:19 pm

My position on this is actually far more influenced by Michael Tooley and David Benatar than Peter Singer. It started when I read Tooley's essay "Abortion and Infanticide" when I took a bioethics class as a teenager, and I thought, "Yep, this dude makes a lot of sense. I can't think of any arguments against this."

It's about him trying to grapple with the question of why infanticide is considered axiomatically wrong when abortion, at least by liberals, is considered only provisionally wrong. What moral relevance is there between babies and fetuses that makes it always wrong to take the life of one but not the other? He was the only person I knew who made what I thought was the obvious point that it's extremely difficult to form a coherent liberal position on abortion without at least trying to come to grips with the morality of infanticide. Since this was a problem I had been puzzled by since I was a kid and no one had a good answer for it or seemed to think it was even worth thinking about, I was prepared to take what he said seriously.

His point is that the best way to figure out if someone has a right to life is if that person (or organism) possesses the concept of a self as a continuing subject of experience that persists linearly through time, and believes that it is itself such a continuing entity, and furthermore that it wants to continue existing as a continuing subject of experience. One must have a consciousness of itself as a continuing subject of experience to have a right to life.

His defense of that is to say that to ascribe a right to a person is to say something about the obligations of other people to act in certain ways in relation to that person. (Meaning, that a person has a right to a thing if it's the case that, if he wants that thing, it would be wrong for others to deprive him of it.) But the obligations in question are conditional, dependent upon the person's desires. So if he asks you to destroy something to which he has a right, you're not violating his right to that thing if you destroy it, but if he desires a thing (and he has a right to it), that means others are under an obligation to refrain from actions that would deprive him of it. If we apply this to the right to life, it means a person has a right to life if he desires to continue to exist as a subject of experience. This means that this right can be denied to beings that aren't capable of even possessing the necessary concepts to have that desire. This would cover all insects, the overwhelming majority of animals, embryos, fetuses, and newborns. Not toddlers or above.

Another, perhaps better, requirement someone else came up with is that a person has a right to life if he or she is capable of attributing at least some basic value to his/her existence such that being deprived of that existence represents a loss/harm to him or her. It's worded differently, and it might be better, but it amounts to the same thing, as a continuing subject of experience might be the only thing that can attach basic value to continued existence.

That's the argument, and I found it pretty compelling. Even if it's not, I'm glad he decided to grapple with the question seriously, since it's easily one of the most important questions in the universe and most people don't bother.

This doesn't mean that I think a world in which we were all able to carry out the logical implications of this would be a better one. I don't think it's a good idea to make babies in the first place, but once they exist, I don't think it would be good at all if we as a society thought it was no big deal to just end them, for hundreds of different reasons. So, no, I (generally) don't support infanticide. Including the disabled.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 7:31 pm

I almost commented earlier that I don't feel comfortable with abortion for the same reasons I don't feel comfortable with infanticide, and I haven't seen a clear argument to alleviate this discomfort for me, but I've always kept my mouth shut for the same reasons alluded to earlier in this thread - I'm a man.

If you were only arguing that infants are not persons, then I disagree but that's much more defensible than what I understood from your post. I am wondering how you reconcile this with your position on animal rights? Is it only the minority of animals that you think fit the bill for possessing a concept of self that should have rights?

I'm also still curious as to how you can have the mantra of "if it reduces the amount of suffering in the world, or the potential for suffering, it should be done," and not think that the death of every living thing with the capacity to suffer would not only be good, but should be actively promoted and sought out. Especially when you come at it with the perspective that the potential for pleasure is not a meaningful counterweight to the potential for suffering.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 8:17 pm

BruceSmith78 wrote:I almost commented earlier that I don't feel comfortable with abortion for the same reasons I don't feel comfortable with infanticide, and I haven't seen a clear argument to alleviate this discomfort for me, but I've always kept my mouth shut for the same reasons alluded to earlier in this thread - I'm a man.

I mean, I guess since I'm a man this is sort of begging the question, but I don't think just because you're male you should be disallowed to express opinions on it, or have a debate on certain aspects of it. I agree with Anakin that men shouldn't ask women to make sacrifices they will never have to make, but I don't think this means men should just have no opinions on it at all.

BruceSmith78 wrote:If you were only arguing that infants are not persons, then I disagree but that's much more defensible than what I understood from your post.

That is exactly what I am arguing. I'm arguing that only persons have a right to life, and infants are not persons because they don't possess the properties necessary to qualify as persons. What do you mean by "infants are not persons" that would make that statement more defensible?

BruceSmith78 wrote:I am wondering how you reconcile this with your position on animal rights? Is it only the minority of animals that you think fit the bill for possessing a concept of self that should have rights?

I actually don't think animals have a right to life. I am certainly a hell of a lot more comfortable saying animals don't have a right to life than saying babies don't. I am perfectly okay with killing animals, at least most of them, because I don't think most of them possess the brainpower to conceive of themselves as continuing subjects of experience that persist linearly through time and to desire to continue existing as those. What I do think is animals have the rights to be free from suffering and pain; you don't need to possess the right to life to have a right to be free from suffering, just as it's okay to squish a fly but not okay for some psycho to pull off its legs.

BruceSmith78 wrote:I'm also still curious as to how you can have the mantra of "if it reduces the amount of suffering in the world, or the potential for suffering, it should be done," and not think that the death of every living thing with the capacity to suffer would not only be good, but should be actively promoted and sought out. Especially when you come at it with the perspective that the potential for pleasure is not a meaningful counterweight to the potential for suffering.

Well, yeah.

The world isn't all suffering, but what suffering there is can be incomprehensibly awful. If you have a town of ten people, and nine of them were living deliriously happy lives filled with perfect meaning and satisfaction, but one was in unimaginable agony with no hope of escape, I would gladly eliminate the entire town if it was somehow the only way to eliminate that last person's misery. Even if it was a hundred people. Or a million. Or a billion. Even the happiness of an infinite number of people doesn't outweigh or counteract the torture of one. This is my single strongest held moral belief.

I mean, people really, really, really underestimate how horrible life can get for some people. I've been broke and depressed my entire life, but my life is literally heavenly compared to what some people have gone through. No matter how hard I try I can't imagine what people like Junko Furuta or Hiroshi Ouchi or Sylvia Likens had to experience. It was obviously worse than anything I, or anyone else who hasn't experienced it themselves, can imagine. Even if everyone else on the planet was living happy lives... I still think it would be a good decision to destroy the planet if there was one Junko Furuta on it.

I don't think there's any "humane" way to eliminate all life, though, so that's why I'm a transhumanist. It's the best (the only) practical way we can transcend this shithole of a world. The answer to the problem of suffering in the human condition is to transcend the human condition through technology. Make it so that the potential for suffering is drastically reduced or eliminated. It's an extremely unlikely long shot, but the other option is not acceptable and the status quo is not okay.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:49 pm

What I mean is I initially thought you were just saying that if you're tired of taking care of your kids, then kill them. Fuck it, they won't care cuz they'll be dead. This is because Anakin's premise didn't specify how old the child was, or what their mental state was, and some of the other shit you said. You apparently weren't arguing that, you were arguing that infants aren't people in any meaningful sense of the word so killing them is okay. I think that's a more defensible position, although I still don't agree with it.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Wed Nov 01, 2017 2:34 am

It's about him trying to grapple with the question of why infanticide is considered axiomatically wrong when abortion, at least by liberals, is considered only provisionally wrong. What moral relevance is there between babies and fetuses that makes it always wrong to take the life of one but not the other?

I fully agree with this argument, but where we differ is that I consider the majority of newborns and late-term fetuses to fulfill that criteria of personhood, which I define more loosely as consciousness. I'd have no moral qualms about euthanising a brain-dead newborn, but not in the case of a healthy, conscious fetus a couple months from birth, barring overriding external factors such as the health of the mother.

I still think it would be a good decision to destroy the planet if there was one Junko Furuta on it.

I'd agree (not so much Furuta and Likens, since I've unfortunately heard much worse as far as torture/rape/murder goes, but Hiroshi Ouchi - that was thoroughly sickening, and my only consolation is that he was apparently in a coma for much of it, but seriously wtf is wrong with people), but only if it was the whole planet and the destruction in question was instant and painless. Anything else would cause additional suffering. But honestly, if there were a magic button that would cause all life to be instantly and painlessly wiped out without warning, I'd most likely press it for similar reasons. Every now and then I hear of some horrific suffering and desperately want everything to just end, or just my own life, because I don't know how to cope with living in a universe where these things can happen.

However:

If you have a town of ten people, and nine of them were living deliriously happy lives filled with perfect meaning and satisfaction, but one was in unimaginable agony with no hope of escape, I would gladly eliminate the entire town if it was somehow the only way to eliminate that last person's misery.

I think an exception would be if the person doesn't want that misery ended. It may be a sacrifice they consciously decide to make for others. But that's also my Christianity speaking, since that's what Jesus' sacrifice was all about: endure torture and death, save the world.

But I've also wondered to what degree our reactions are shaped from the generally privileged lives we live compared to most of the world and human history. It's very likely that our threshold for suffering is a lot lower than for most of those other people, for whom the suffering we consider unimaginable is something they've grown up around and are used to as part of life, and in some cases survived, and even though it's still terrible for them it doesn't invoke that same desire to destroy everything. A Holocaust survivor might have very different responses to this thread, for instance. To a much lesser degree, I see this all the time with cis friends being completely horrified by some random transphobic thing that happened to me, and I'm just like... chill, this happens all the time, I'm fine, really.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:27 am

My first thought reading DA's justification for wanting to happily murder everyone was, "if someone told me I could press a button to immediately end everyone's life or I could submit to the most heinous torture imagineable for the next six months, I'd say 'fucking do your worst'." At least I'd like to think I would. I think killing everyone in the world would be much worse than enduring any form of torture, and I'm not a Christian. My second thought was that he is really, really, really underestimating most people's will to live and endure. I bet if you asked Furuta if she wished she'd never been born at the end of her ordeal, she'd have said no. I think she probably would still have preferred to have had her seventeen years of existence than none at all, and if you asked her if she still wanted to live she'd probably have said yes.

I really can't understand why a Christian would like to end all life. Isn't that like the ultimate rejection of God's will? Like, "God, I know you created all this for your Holy reasons that are beyond my comprehension, but you fucked up and it's time to end your little experiment." *presses button* Isn't God supposed to do that?

And my thoughts on abortion are more or less in line with Anakin's. I just don't know when consciousness begins, so it's hard for me to say when exactly we go from aborting a thing to killing a baby. Also, I didn't mean to say I don't think men are allowed to have an opinion on abortion, just that since my opinion was that it's probably not a good thing to do, I thought it best to keep it to myself. Saying, "Abortion is bad and shouldn't be done in most cases," during a debate about abortion is basically me asking women to make sacrifices I'll never have to make.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Wed Nov 01, 2017 3:57 am

I bet if you asked Furuta if she wished she'd never been born at the end of her ordeal, she'd have said no. I think she probably would still have preferred to have had her seventeen years of existence than none at all, and if you asked her if she still wanted to live she'd probably have said yes.

I agree, based in part from people who've gone through terrible things but don't regret being born.

I really can't understand why a Christian would like to end all life. Isn't that like the ultimate rejection of God's will?

In that context it would also mean an afterlife exists, and since I've moved towards universalism it would mean everyone ending up in heaven. And then if it turns out it was a sin, I'd willingly bear the punishment as everyone else gets spared their suffering.

So yes - on further thought after taking some time from this thread, I probably wouldn't press that button. In line with the above paragraph, I remember often thinking that I would willingly endure eternal torture (and I can well imagine what that might entail) if it meant everyone else getting to be happy, and I think that's the stance I ultimately go back to. But the difference here is that it would be me, and I'm much more comfortable saying yeah, I'd bear that suffering, vs being one of the people who get to be happy knowing that that happiness is predicated on the suffering of another. (Which is something that often bothers me about living in a first world country where much of the things we enjoy are at the expense of less fortunate others.)

phe_de · Post by **phe_de** » Wed Nov 01, 2017 10:46 am

Derived Absurdity wrote:The world isn't all suffering, but what suffering there is can be incomprehensibly awful. If you have a town of ten people, and nine of them were living deliriously happy lives filled with perfect meaning and satisfaction, but one was in unimaginable agony with no hope of escape, I would gladly eliminate the entire town if it was somehow the only way to eliminate that last person's misery. Even if it was a hundred people. Or a million. Or a billion. Even the happiness of an infinite number of people doesn't outweigh or counteract the torture of one. This is my single strongest held moral belief.

I mean, people really, really, really underestimate how horrible life can get for some people. I've been broke and depressed my entire life, but my life is literally heavenly compared to what some people have gone through. No matter how hard I try I can't imagine what people like Junko Furuta or Hiroshi Ouchi or Sylvia Likens had to experience. It was obviously worse than anything I, or anyone else who hasn't experienced it themselves, can imagine. Even if everyone else on the planet was living happy lives... I still think it would be a good decision to destroy the planet if there was one Junko Furuta on it.

On this, I disagree.

I believe that in justice, it's better to let 100 guilty people walk free than to punish one innocent person; and I also believe that it's usually better to do nothing than to make a mistake.
In the case of suffering, if the people leading happy lives are not reponsible for the one person's suffering, then they are innocent, so to speak. And if they are not responsible, then their lives are not directly connected to the life of the suffering person, and therefore there has to be a way to stop the suffering of the one person without killing everybody else.

The scenario with killing everybody not involved in some suffering sounds like something a psychopatic supervillain like the Joker or Jigsaw might imagine. Capture one person, torture them in ways that make Furuta's or Ouchi's ordeals look like a walk in the park, and give them a button, saying: If you press this button, the suffering stops. But everybody else around you (and you as well) will die.
OT: That's what I like better about "The Dark Knight" then about the "Saw" movies. In TDR, at the ferry scene, the potential victims of the supervillain refuse to play his game (they don't press the buttons); but in the Saw movies, the victims just go along with Jigsaw's game.

In the above scenario with destroying villages or planets, it's even worse in my opinion, because it's not the tortured person making a decision, it's some random not involved entity making the decision. Just deciding to kill a large number of persons because of some notion of morality is something I'd expect terrorists or dictators to do; but not people who are not psychopaths.

It would be different if the people living happy lives did so because they were torturing the suffering person. But in this case, they'd stop being innocent, and therefore killing everybody would be an option to consider. However, the tortured person would be collateral damage, so there has to be a better way.

But this is just my opinion.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Nov 02, 2017 1:46 pm

I'm not sure how anyone here can assume what Junko Furuta thought at the end of her "ordeal". What basis do you have for making those assertions? In a way, if she actually did want to keep living, that makes it worse, because... well, she didn't, did she. She went through all that, and then she just died. In indescribable agony, I might add. She didn't get to live after. She didn't get a chance to "persevere". She was burned alive. She went through forty four days of incomprehensible suffering, and there was zero point to it. There was no reason for it. There was no silver lining, because she died immediately after.

This is an argument against the undesirability of being born... how?

I actually think my will to live would grow stronger after going through immense trauma. Because, what, I'm going to go through some horrible shit, and then I'll just die? Fuck that noise. If I'm gonna be tortured horribly I'd like to at least live a bit after spin something positive out of it. Maybe keep living and enjoying life just out of pure spite. I honestly can't even imagine killing myself after going through what she went through. But she didn't even get that chance. That makes the whole thing a million times worse.

I really don't want to know what you're reading or seeing Anakin if you've seen worse. You're sure you know what the Junko Furuta case is, right? Because I've read a lot of nasty shit and nothing I've ever read even comes anywhere close to what she went through. Including Unit 731 shit.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Thu Nov 02, 2017 4:53 pm

I've never been able to get through a program. I always found them so annoying. Now I know that they're also crazy.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Thu Nov 02, 2017 8:58 pm

I never said "this is definitely what she was thinking", but my experience has taught me that people don't die easily. They fight for their lives through the bleakest of circumstances. At least most of them do. It would be mighty presumptuous to just be like, "nah, you're suffering, so let me end it for you, and for everybody else while I'm at it," and pretend you're doing everyone a favor. The point I'm making is maybe she didn't want anyone to end her life, even after all that. The fact that her life was ended doesn't mean it should have been.

If someone can go through something like that and still think their life is worth living, and not regret being born, then the fact that you think they would have been better off if they were never born is pretty irrelevant.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Nov 02, 2017 9:41 pm

Monk wrote:I've never been able to get through a program. I always found them so annoying. Now I know that they're also crazy.

Whoa! An on topic post, that's unexpected.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Nov 03, 2017 12:45 am

That's not what I'm arguing. By "after", are you saying after it all ended? Because, yeah, I wouldn't want anyone to end my life after it all ended, either. But maybe she did want her life to end while her suffering was actually going on. I am basing this wild assumption off the allegation that she outright told her torturers to kill her.

There's always a degree of presumption when it comes to deciding the fates of other people. If someone is suffering horribly, and for some reason you don't know what they want, it's going to be presumptuous no matter if you assume they would rather suffer through it or just end it. But it's a choice either way. My choice rests on preventing as much suffering as possible. I know I would insanely pissed if, if I was in some terrible torment and I couldn't do anything about it or tell anyone what I was thinking (like I was in an awake coma or something), someone decided for me that I would rather live and bear through it rather than just end it already. It's presumption either way. I know there have been many times where someone died without wanting to because someone decided they were suffering too much. I also know of many times where someone was forced to live in agony and horror because someone decided for them that surviving was more important than getting peace, despite their explicit wishes otherwise. That seems much worse to me.

It was presumptuous what I did to my dad. It was still the right direction. Golden Rule. Do unto others what you would want them to do unto you.

BruceSmith78 · Post by **BruceSmith78** » Fri Nov 03, 2017 1:39 am

As I began reading that second paragraph, just that first sentence of the second paragraph, it hit me that you had to go through the terrible experience of deciding your father's fate, and I realized a lot of my comments were pretty insensitive given that context, so I'm really fucking sorry for that. I'm an asshole. I agree, you did make the right decision then.

I get what you're saying about it being presumptuous either way when deciding whether or not to end someone's life when they're suffering, and I'm hesitant to take this conversation much further because I'll probably say something else that I shouldn't, but that's a fair point. It doesn't come close to convincing me that nobody should live or even be born, but it's a fair point.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Fri Nov 03, 2017 8:55 am

I really don't want to know what you're reading or seeing Anakin if you've seen worse. You're sure you know what the Junko Furuta case is, right?

Yeah, I just looked up the case and read about it.

I've got a trans activist friend who posts every few weeks or so about some new horrific murder of a trans woman, often involving extreme torture. I don't really want to think about the details, though one involved repeatedly setting her alive, dousing out the flames, and then starting over, multiple times until she died. Another was violently castrated and had her genitals stuffed in her mouth, then set on fire; I think a bunch of other things happened before that point. Even sociopaths are more willing to cross the lines of basic decency when they don't view their victim as human but a monstrous creature to be destroyed, whereas there always seems to be a particular line they can't cross when it's someone relatively similar to them. Another trans woman was jailed for some minor misdemeanor (perhaps crossdressing, I can't remember), thrown into a men's prison and then violently beaten and gang raped every single day for several years, and that's one of the cases that didn't feel as bad because it falls more within the realm of normal abuse. Plus she survived that one.

I guess these also affect me a lot more because they hit really close to home, and are more traumatising knowing that there's a slim chance that one day it might happen to me or one of my friends (more likely the latter).

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Nov 03, 2017 6:18 pm

Well, that's extremely horrific, and I'm very sorry you have to go through with feeling that way. I can't imagine that.

I still think Junko Furuta is the worst thing I've ever read. It's not something I'm really interested in arguing about, however.

BruceSmith78 wrote:As I began reading that second paragraph, just that first sentence of the second paragraph, it hit me that you had to go through the terrible experience of deciding your father's fate, and I realized a lot of my comments were pretty insensitive given that context, so I'm really fucking sorry for that. I'm an asshole. I agree, you did make the right decision then.

Lol, you're okay, Bruce. You didn't offend me at all and you're not being even slightly an asshole. There's nothing to apologize for. I'm the one who should be apologizing. I feel like I shouldn't have entered into a conversation about the ethics of killing babies with someone who just had a child. That's well beyond insensitive and stupid. My only defense was that I thought you were basically familiar with my thoughts on this, because during IMDB I used to talk about it all the time on the philosophy board.

My original comment which started all this was extremely stupid and crass and phrased in literally the worst way possible, and I should know by now not to just blunder through topics like this. I'm the asshole on this thread. Easily. You've been extremely cool here.

maz89 · Post by **maz89** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:00 am

This may be the only place on the internet where a thread threatens to go off the rails, almost does, but ends with people gracefully accepting (or politely agreeing to disagree with) each other's viewpoints.

I tried to read up on the Junko Furuta case. The wiki page was not explicit about what happened to her during her days in captivity, but some blog was. If we're making requests for magic buttons, I want one that can shift-delete mankind's capacity for evil. But I also realize that isn't relevant to the earlier button analogies so it is alright if my request is totally ignored.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:28 am

Was it the ripeace blog? I read that one and the wiki entry.

Those were the examples that I could bear to type; with some others I don't want to think about them more than necessary. Though in terms of most horrific things I've read, I'd have to go with medieval torture methods around the world that I accidentally encountered at one point and noped out of very quick. Also Nazi experimentation.

But I think individual phobias also play a big part in how bad we consider particular forms of torture to be, which makes comparisons difficult at some point; i.e. the Hiroshi Ouchi case disturbed me by about an order of magnitude more.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 12:34 pm

You have a phobia of your skin melting off due to radiation poisoning?

The only thing that keeps me from putting Ouchi at the top was that he was in a medically induced coma for most of the time, so he supposedly didn't feel anything during then. Maybe. Also weren't his nerves fried? There's also that.

My three phobias are being buried alive, going through surgery without anesthesia, and full-body paralysis/awake coma. I sense a pattern.

maz89 · Post by **maz89** » Sat Nov 04, 2017 10:25 pm

Yeah Anakin, it was the ripeace blog. The stills on the page are apparently from a movie based on that incident, and I don't think I'm about to forget them anytime soon.

This may sound random but I just got done watching a devastating documentary about a vile murderer who exploited the tragic reality of racial injustice in America to get off scot-free, and I am also not going to be forgetting the images of the gaping holes in the necks of Nicole Brown and Ron Goldman either.

Really want that magic button right about now.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Sun Nov 05, 2017 4:51 am

Yeah, good point about the coma and nerves. That helps a bit.

Not radiation per se, but being burned alive, and more generally being forcibly kept conscious in a severely destroyed body that's barely recognizable as human, and is effectively a living corpse that's only still alive due to aggressive life support.

I'm with you on the buried alive and complete paralysis.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 4:08 pm

Anakin McFly wrote:and the only people who should argue against pro-life women should be pro-choice women.

What?? It' strange to be a man defending women's rights against a woman, but no one should have the right to tell others what to do with their body regardless of gender. Saying that only women should argue with women about choice implies that women should have some sort of say in what other women do with their bodies...simply because they're women? Nah.

And the key to abortion/choice issue isn't when life begins but body autonomy...this convo really went off the rails in multiple ways.

The issue is also very racialized. White-nationalist/far-right men are against choice because they want their women "barefoot and pregnant"...to be white baby-making machines to curb "white genocide". And a lot of anti-choice white women are anti-choice for others, but not for themselves. If you have the means/social status you can get away with being unprincipled about you anti-choice stance since you can just go to another state or even another country to get an abortion, while poor/black women don't have such luxuries. I vaguely remember a Texas governor race back in 2014 where choice/abortion was a major issue of the race. The pro-choice candidate lost and it was revealed that black women and men overwhelming voted for the pro-choice candidate while a majority of white women and men voted against. That's when I first realized just how racialized the abortion issue is.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Tue Nov 07, 2017 5:39 pm

CashRules wrote:
Monk wrote:I've never been able to get through a program. I always found them so annoying. Now I know that they're also crazy.
Whoa! An on topic post, that's unexpected.

Sometimes I like to throw a wrench into the works.

Anakin McFly · Post by **Anakin McFly** » Wed Nov 08, 2017 1:46 am

What?? It' strange to be a man defending women's rights against a woman, but no one should have the right to tell others what to do with their body regardless of gender. Saying that only women should argue with women about choice implies that women should have some sort of say in what other women do with their bodies...simply because they're women? Nah.

It's not a matter of gender but whether one has a direct stake in the issue. I'd also be wary of an infertile lesbian partaking in the debate, but less so because the misogyny surrounding this and that inform some pro-life positions is something that affects her as well.

Given that the pro-choice stance is partly about men not getting to tell women what to do with their bodies, having men tell women what they should do with their bodies is suspect; even when it's "women should be able to do what they want with their bodies", it comes down to: why do women need men to tell them that? It's patronising at best, like when white people tell black people they're being racist against their own race. Even if they're right, it's not their place to say that.

Instead, I think that pro-choice men's efforts would be much better spent arguing against pro-life men, especially those in positions of authority, whom women are less likely to be able to challenge because of that unequal power dynamic. Much of the time it's not women who are getting to make the laws around abortion. There are enough pro-choice women to argue with other women, but it's a lot harder for them to get to the men in power.

And the key to abortion/choice issue isn't when life begins but body autonomy

Most of the pro-life friends I have hold that position solely because they are against the taking of or denial of any life, especially those deemed disposable. This is consistent with their other politics, and while they are also concerned about body autonomy, it's a matter of the lesser of two evils.

The issue is also very racialized. White-nationalist/far-right men are against choice because they want their women "barefoot and pregnant"...to be white baby-making machines to curb "white genocide".

Yeah, screw those people. I think it's also perfectly acceptable to argue against the racism that informs their position, as well as the hypocrisy of being anti-choice for others but not themselves. I think that's different from challenging someone who has thought a lot about the issue (as is the case for most if not all women), especially someone who is keenly aware of the difficulties of an unwanted pregnancy - and may have struggled with one - and still concluded that it would not morally justify an abortion. It's an extremely personal issue heavily compounded by misogyny and a culture that judges women on their sex lives and whether or not they have children, such that there are often additional dimensions to their pro-life stance that most men would not be aware of, risking a lot of insensitivity.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Nov 08, 2017 7:36 pm

Just to steer this thread back to something vaguely related to politics, and because this has been bugging me for a while now...

Wtf is up with all the Hillary fanatics on Twitter all of a sudden? Like, it's well beyond insane at this point. Have you people noticed any of this? What is even going on? Where did these weirdos come from? Just hordes and hordes and hordes and hordes of psychotic Hillary fanatics coming out of the woodwork. Where were these people before the election, when everyone on the Internet hated Hillary and loved Bernie? Seriously, these people are nuts. Some signifiers: 1) claims that literally anyone who criticizes Hillary or the Democratic Party in any way is either a Russian bot, a Russian shill, or a useful idiot for Russia, 2) extremely hyperbolic, practically worshipful praise for Hillary that goes well beyond anything I've seen from either Sanders supporters or Trump supporters, and 3) extreme, absolute, practically homicidal hatred for Bernie Sanders and anyone who likes him.

I mean, these fucking people are everywhere now. They're like a bunch of angry gnats. Where did they even come from? Where were they during the election? Why are they showing up only now after she lost? What is even the point anymore?

I'm sorry, this is probably not the most important thing right now, but wtf is going on. I don't get the Internet.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Wed Nov 08, 2017 8:51 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Just to steer this thread back to something vaguely related to politics, and because this has been bugging me for a while now...

Wtf is up with all the Hillary fanatics on Twitter all of a sudden? Like, it's well beyond insane at this point. Have you people noticed any of this? What is even going on? Where did these weirdos come from? Just hordes and hordes and hordes and hordes of psychotic Hillary fanatics coming out of the woodwork. Where were these people before the election, when everyone on the Internet hated Hillary and loved Bernie? Seriously, these people are nuts. Some signifiers: 1) claims that literally anyone who criticizes Hillary or the Democratic Party in any way is either a Russian bot, a Russian shill, or a useful idiot for Russia, 2) extremely hyperbolic, practically worshipful praise for Hillary that goes well beyond anything I've seen from either Sanders supporters or Trump supporters, and 3) extreme, absolute, practically homicidal hatred for Bernie Sanders and anyone who likes him.

I mean, these fucking people are everywhere now. They're like a bunch of angry gnats. Where did they even come from? Where were they during the election? Why are they showing up only now after she lost? What is even the point anymore?

I'm sorry, this is probably not the most important thing right now, but wtf is going on. I don't get the Internet.

1) These are the same people who were accused of being Russian "fake accounts" by Trump supporters.

2) When you are that devoted to a candidate, it must be a rude awakening to be faced with the finally undeniable fact that everything bad that was ever said about that candidate is, in fact, 100% true. I mean, unless you believe Donna Brazile is lying and Donna Brazile has no more reason to lie.

3) They can never blame Hillary because they're "With Her". So the only avenue they have left is to vent their frustrations on the one honest person in the entire election.

I'm not sure what can really be said that will have any meaning to a bunch of people who consider themselves left-wing while supporting a right-wing corporate tool war-mongering statist. They live in a bubble that isn't even connected to reality. Even Trump supporters are less delusional in their support for their candidate.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Nov 08, 2017 10:43 pm

It just completely baffles me in every single way. Of all the people in the world to feel blind worshipful devotion to... of all the politicians in the world to feel blind worshipful devotion to... her? Really? That's who you choose?

Just... really?

I can't even imagine the type of person you would have to be to love Hillary Clinton yet feel headache-inducing rage at Bernie Sanders. I never even though a person who thought that way could even exist. But on Twitter they are EVERY. WHERE.

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Wed Nov 08, 2017 11:27 pm

Decades of name recognition plus a lot of the people most opposed to you being genuinely shitty do wonders for image I guess.

CashRules · Post by **CashRules** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:26 am

I still laugh at the time she was reading a speech off of a teleprompter and when she got to the part that was telling her to sigh, she actually said the word sigh. Fun times.

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:44 am

1) Tribalism explains why there are cultish Bernie fans and cultish Hillary fans

2) Beyond that, it's easy to hate Bernie and love Hillary if you proritize identity politics...since Bernie shits on "identity politics" while playing wwc identity politics...and has consistently used dangerous dogwhistles, unintentionally or not. Hillary has embraced "identity politics", cynically or not.

3) Bernie's a little bitch.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:47 am

Bernie's gonna win in 2020

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:55 am

Killary did 9/11

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 12:58 am

Bernie has a higher approval rating among Hillary's voters than Hillary herself

also among literally every single demographic

Cassius Clay · Post by **Cassius Clay** » Thu Nov 09, 2017 2:55 am

I don't quite trust Bernie but I would happily vote for him over any republican candidate. And I actually voted for him in the primaries.

maz89 · Post by **maz89** » Fri Nov 10, 2017 4:54 am

CashRules wrote:I still laugh at the time she was reading a speech off of a teleprompter and when she got to the part that was telling her to sigh, she actually said the word sigh. Fun times.

I just saw this. This made my day.

This youtube comment also made my day: she also said: "Sony(TM)! HDMI1 HDMI2" and "warning high voltage input 110v 60hz"ï»¿

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Sat Nov 25, 2017 7:06 am

oh hell yeah bitch

inject this shit straight into my EYEBALL

https://www.salon.com/2017/11/24/heres- ... nton-2020/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Tue Nov 28, 2017 10:14 pm

Derived Absurdity wrote:Bernie has a higher approval rating among Hillary's voters than Hillary herself

also among literally every single demographic

I don't think this is actually surprising at all. I'm fairly certain this happens pretty regularly after a candidate loses an election. Nobody is happy to have voted for the loser. That being said, Bernie (Biden too) is too old to be a first term president in 2020. I'd vote for him, obviously, but younger blood would be more ideal.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 12:21 am

It's not surprising, just funny. It's also something to troll Hillary Twitter fanatics with.

I don't consider 79 to be too old if you're mentally and physically capable, which he seems to be.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Wed Nov 29, 2017 3:52 pm

My fear with Bernie being President is that the presidency takes a toll physically and mentally. Both Obama and Dubya look like they aged 15+ years during their presidency. There's a lot of stress and not a lot of sleep. I'm not sure someone who's 79 would be able to really deal with the rigors.

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Thu Nov 30, 2017 2:21 pm

Tbh the only reason I want Bernie to run and win is so that Joy Ann Reid will suffer. I don't care beyond that.

And I still don't really think his age is a big deal. Just kill a few babies, which as everyone here knows by now I fully support, and drink their blood and it'll be fine.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Thu Nov 30, 2017 4:20 pm

I admittedly didn't really follow the Reid/Bernie thing. tl; dr version?

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Fri Dec 01, 2017 12:47 am

Joy Ann Reid is just an enormous shithead on Twitter. She's basically the online ringleader of the "hate Bernie with the fire of a thousand suns while worshipping Hillary" crowd. She has no integrity or intellectual honesty whatsoever. She's a morally empty shell of a person. Asking me to list examples of her awfulness would be like asking me to list examples of Trump's awfulness. I couldn't. She's just nothing but awful.

Monk · Post by **Monk** » Fri Dec 01, 2017 3:20 pm

tl; dr

Derived Absurdity · Post by **Derived Absurdity** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:39 am

What was that about how democrats need to cave on abortion rights in the deep south again?

Raxivace · Post by **Raxivace** » Wed Dec 13, 2017 4:44 am

Derived Absurdity wrote:What was that about how democrats need to cave on abortion rights in the deep south again?

I mean I'm glad I was wrong and the state flipped but it was still a super close race and if Moore hadn't been accused of raping a 14 year old do you really think he wouldn't have won?