ProfessionalTeabagger

That's why I gave an argument that refutes that. An argument you have not addressed. Ownership does mean you always in control of the thing you own; otherwise there would be no theft, rape, murder or assault. Control of X (or lack of control of X for that matter) does not necessarily entail ownership (or lack of ownership). Ownership entails control. If I own the car that does not necessarily mean I am always in control of it. Also, the call in show is about to start and there's been some no-shows so you can get on and talk to stef directly.

Owning X entailing control of X is not the same control of X entails ownership of X.

So what if Stef said ownership of X entailed direct control of X? He's never said that control of X means you own it. In the rape example I'm saying the woman does not control her vagina because the rapist has taken control of it (and the other parts of her body he needs to control i guess). So when you agree you're misunderstanding. I favor the definition of self-ownership being discussed because it's the correct one. The thief doesn't literally take control of the time and labor as it happens or is being used. The car is a manifestation of the time and labor and the thief takes that. They claim ownership of it through the act of stealing the car but that claim is not legitimate because they cannot have control of that time and labor. Oh BTW if you want to understand where Stef is coming from I'd recommend calling in tonight to his show. You may even get to the front of the cue if you say you want to present these objections. You'll understand where he is coming from hundreds of times faster that way.

You can say the thief controls the car but does not own it. So what? The argument is not "if you control X you own X". You might be a thief or rapist for example. Directly controlling the time/labor means they made the thing. They control the right to say "this car is product of my time and labor" and that be true. The thief takes control of that time and labor, thereby retroactively enslaving the rightful owner. The thief claims ownership through the act of taking the car but does not have legitimate ownership. It's like a rapist taking control over the women's vagina. He has removed control from her but that does not mean she does not own the vagina. Do you see now?

Yes, "Ownership entails control", not "control entails ownership". What's the problem? With the car example that's called theft or illegitimate ownership if you like. The rightful owner may not have physical control over the car but they still control other aspects. Among other things they control the creation of the car, the time and labor that made it. The car is part of them but not part of the thief. So thief is taking their time and labor (creativity, etc). That time and labor cannot both be owned by the thief and the owner. So the thief's ownership is illegitimate. Hope that clears it up.

Control is necessary but not sufficient criteria for ownership. You don't have direct control over you car when you park it either but you still have ownership of it. You don't have direct control of your body when you sleep but it's still yours. "For X to own Y means that X has direct control of Y" is not the same as "For X to be in control of Y means X owns Y". That's a common straw-man of ownership.

"seems clearly falsifiable"? Make an effort.

Because their control is not legitimate. You can control something without having legitimate ownership of it. That's called theft or borrowing. Don't confuse "direct control" = ownership with ownership = direct control. If I take your car and drive away with it I am in direct control of the car but that does not mean I own it. I cannot for example own the time and labor that made the car. That is something I would just be taking. You also have to use common sense when it comes to interpreting "controls everything". A statement like "the government controls everything" is true in one context and false in another. So be careful not to mix up contexts. This leads to interesting lines of philosophy.

You need more details. Preventing someone from committing suicide tells you very little. Is it a loved one? Have they made promises to you. Do you have a relationship with them? Have they put you in a bad position? Are they mentally well? Do they have children?

That's not an argument. That's a series of conclusions. That's three sentences telling us what you believe. I'm sorry if you think someone politely asking you for an argument after politely pointing out you don't have one is "unkind". You could have shown me how I was wrong and presented your argument but instead you've claimed I'm being "harsh". I'm believe you are being hyper-sensitive to criticism. I'm frustrated with you, not your argument and I HAVE called out other people for this very thing on other threads. I have also argued against the position you hold extensively outside of FDR and probably have more experience with it than everyone here combined so It's got nothing to do with me not liking the "argument". Not everything you write must be an argument but this is a philosophy forum so at some point you must make a valid argument for the conclusions you're making; otherwise you're just browbeating people and it will be difficult to know if you're trolling or not. When we argue against the state for example we don't just assert "the state is immoral because it has no right to use force" or "It doesn't matter how much benefit you get from the state, it's still immoral". Those are just conclusions. Do you understand how the "argument" you present above is just opinion? Please have some empathy for the people you're debating. You claim all procreation is immoral. What is your argument for that?

As you have not addressed the arguments I made to you I would ask if you have an argument? Asking "who are we to make this grand decision?" is not an argument. It's rhetoric. It's an attempt to shame. There's no way to refute it. This is a philosophy forum. You make arguments. You claim all procreation is immoral. What is your argument for that?

No there's an overwhelmingly reasonable expectation that the hair-cutting is not wanted. This is not so with birth. If you would prefer not to have existed then you cannot be happy. A logical prerequisite for happiness in life is that one at least find it preferable to non-existence or never-existence. You do not find it preferable, therefore it is not logically possible that you are happy. Yes if life were hell then it would be immoral. Of course. So what? It's not like the options are ALL birth is immoral or ALL birth is moral. You don't have to make your best guess. Humans are designed to exist and certain standards can be set that make it certain any child will prefer existence.

I asked how you know you can't prove it and if you could prove their non-existence is preferable, not how it "was possible" for you to know if not having kids was moral. No you can't be 100% sure of the future your child will grow up in or that they will be satisfied with life. So what? 100 percent certainty in this context is an irrational standard that is impossible to apply consistently. You use the term "forced to make choices" instead of "given the power of choice" or "granted agency" or something neutral. So anyone arguing with you will appear to be arguing for force. I reject that because you have not argued that granting choice is an act of force. You can't smuggle that in. So it's not immoral on those grounds. You need to make a moral argument. A moral argument demonstrates the criteria for something being immoral and then demonstrates the act/behavior fits that criteria. So far you've just stated you view that having a child is immoral because you can't have 100 percent certainty. Your analogy with cutting the strangers hair is wrong. There's a overwhelmingly reasonable expectation that the cutting of the hair is unwanted. There is no such expectation that a child will not want life; just the opposite. If you parent peacefully then it's a virtual certainty the child will not view life as having a negative value. Such a view requires something go wrong AFTER being born. As I said in my first post, being born is a necessary condition for regretting or hating life but not a sufficient one.

It's important to me too and I don't appreciate being responded to with nonsense. When I call troll it's because I actually mean it. It's not an ad hominem. If you say the things you're saying and fail to respond to the arguments being made to you then it appears you are trying to get a rise out of people. Now you are claiming that I'm being unkind and I'm attacking you. No I'm being totally fair. If you are going to accuse someone of "ad hominems" and claim victim-hood then prove it. I gave you an argument and you responded with a blank message. Then you responded with "exactly!" as if to say that what I had written somehow proved and /or illustrated your point. If you're going to make this incredibly serious moral argument then you need to be serious and rigorous.

I call antinatalist troll.

Are you okay?

How do you know you can't prove it? Can you prove their non-existence is preferable? How much actual thought have you put into it? What standards would have to be met for birth to be justified? Is it moral for you to put forward this argument half-cocked when it could lead to someone's non-existence? Why is your conclusion that bringing children into existence the most immoral choice? What's your argument for that conclusion? What gives you the right to ask what gives someone else the right to have a child? Why do they need to prove the right anymore than they have to prove any other right? What gives YOU the right to continue existing? What gives YOU the right to risk causing the non-existence of someone who would have otherwise existed? Do you think pre-murder is moral? How do we know this isn't just your depression being projected onto others?

You have to prove the reason this guy you know wishes he'd never been born is necessarily because he has disabilities. Maybe it WAS wrong for his parents to bring him into existence but not necessarily for the reasons given. I have seen no evidence that disabled people generally feel more regret for being born than non-disabled so I highly doubt the reason for his depression is him coming onto existence and/or having disabilities. Coming into existence is a necessary but not sufficient condition for such regret so no, it's not immoral to bring a child into the world. Note that you shifted from a specific case to a universal. You started with this one guy and by the end you were asking a question about everyone. The question about whether it's moral to bring a child into an immoral system like the current debt slavery is interesting and one I've thought about myself but it's a different question from your opening one. When Stef talks about the unborn he's referring to those who WILL come into existence.

We ARE all equal in terms of ethics. It's equally wrong to rape, murder, steal or assault a person regardless of their status.

So sorry for being hostile. Can you give a valid definition of "hostile" and demonstrate how the responses fit it?

There's no contradiction. You are not initiating force on anyone by remaining in a state. If you want to apply that consistently you would have to agree that civilians do not exist in a state, right? Anyone killed on 9/11 would be a legitimate military target because "they could have left the country". Even if one leaves all states and lives in unclaimed territory they are still subject to a state because the state can still come for you. What anarchic region did you live in? I wasn't aware that any existed. You will of course provide specifics and a clear example of how this living situation fits with the clearly defined definition of libertarianism you're using, right?

I am deeply sorry if you thought I was calling you that. I was just pointing out that's how you're being treated (like a disingenuous concern troll creep). Your thesis just keeps getting proved. Anyone who does not provide a response you like proves your thesis. That's genius. Yes those standards are not yours but philosophy's. Again I'm sorry this forum does not meet the standard of philosophy and as you require such a standard I am sorry that you'll be leaving this forum. Maybe in a few years we'll have upped our rational game but until then I wish you the best in your en-devours and am sorry you cannot continue to post on FDR. I think everyone here should wish you the best and we can part on good terms. Agreed?

This is a concern troll. Can What argument could I make? Your thesis is obviously correct and you are clearly sincere and these members are treating you like you're some concern-troll dickhead. You have demonstrated that reality offends us. I'm sorry FDR is so full of irrational people and was not what you were expecting. Obviously you'll be leaving and going somewhere else that meets your standards. I for one am sorry you're going but I promise I will try to up my game and I hope my fellow FDR members will do the same. All the best in your future away from FDR. Best wishes. PT.

Shame on you FDR community. You failed to meet the standards of Zmorris. Go to your room and think about what you've done.

They are mostly in the global warming and statist camp too. I believe they were all in the theistic camp when they didn't know the answers. Now they're mostly in the determinist camp because ... They DO know the answers? I'm well aware determinsts would like to characterize themselves as being in the rationalist/atheism category and draw parallels with the new atheism movement. I've heard that quite a few times. If the new atheism movement had happened before the discovery of evolution the same people would declaring that life is an illusion and that these "lifers" believe in magic. It would be the same argument from ignorance and/or fallacy of composition determinists use. You haven't got a fucking clue how conscious choice occurs and are simply making shit up to wash away your insecurity at not knowing. We free-willers here take the logically consistent position, which is "I don't know".