Unpopular Opinions - OP Updated with Threadban List 4/5/21

partyguinness

vriesmays wrote: »

Ireland is the only country in Western Europe who hasn't invented its own style of electronic dance music.

Ok...


1. What is your definition of Western Europe?
2. What is your defintion of electronic dance music?

vriesmays

partyguinness wrote: »

Ok...


1. What is your definition of Western Europe?

Ireland to Germany.

partyguinness wrote: »

Ok...


2. What is your defintion of electronic dance music?

Drum n bass, gabber, Italo disco, new beat, trance, French House, Belgium techno, two-step.

partyguinness

vriesmays wrote: »

Ireland to Germany.



Drum n bass, gabber, Italo disco, new beat, trance, French House, Belgium techno, two-step.

Thanks.



What do they have in Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Denmark and Portugal as a matter of interest? Also Andorra and Monaco?

stefanovich

partyguinness wrote: »

Thanks.



What do they have in Luxembourg, Liechtenstein, Denmark and Portugal as a matter of interest? Also Andorra and Monaco?

An argumentative geographer, just what we need

vriesmays

Here's Portugal, look the rest up yourself.

https://www.redbull.com/ie-en/essential-portuguese-club-tracks

partyguinness

stefanovich wrote: »

An argumentative geographer, just what we need

I am genuinely curious. I am not familiar with the Irish electronic dance scene so I am curious by the statement that Ireland is the only country in Western Europe not to invent it's own brand. It may well be right.

partyguinness

vriesmays wrote: »

Here's Portugal, look the rest up yourself.

https://www.redbull.com/ie-en/essential-portuguese-club-tracks

LOL....I must insist that you back up your statement...you made it.

You are not getting away that easy...

EmmetSpiceland

vriesmays wrote: »

Ireland is the only country in Western Europe who hasn't invented its own style of electronic dance music.

What about that Daithí lad who plays the fiddle with loops and the like. That’s got a bit of trad mixed with a dance beat, no?

Or who could forget the “floor filler” that was ‘An Dreoilín’?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dJ5zcNUROk

guitarzero

Having children is unethical (antinatalism). It imposes a reality on a sentient being without its consent and it could experience extreme harm.

cnocbui

guitarzero wrote: »

Having children is unethical (antinatalism). It imposes a reality on a sentient being without its consent and it could experience extreme harm.

My son tried that on me, so I shot him. Haven't heard a peep from him since. /j

stefanovich

guitarzero wrote: »

Having children is unethical (antinatalism). It imposes a reality on a sentient being without its consent and it could experience extreme harm.

Have you read this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Never_to_Have_Been

It’s on my list but to be honest, even the bleakness of the title makes me pause.

Gruffalux

Teofimo98 wrote: »

I agree that it's a fair argument that it's immoral to have children without their consent. Obviously they can never consent so it's immoral to have children then.

But the implication from that is all being is immoral. So only an empty universe is good.

joeguevara

Teofimo98 wrote: »

I agree that it's a fair argument that it's immoral to have children without their consent. Obviously they can never consent so it's immoral to have children then.

How can something that doesn't exist consent to exist. Before a child is conceived, how can they consent to the conception.

BensMixed

Yeah I never understood why people don't just adopt if they really want a child. I suppose it just shows that humans really are just animals, slaves to their genes in many ways at the end of the day.

joeguevara

Teofimo98 wrote: »

I just said they can never consent in my post you quoted.

Therefore it's immoral to have children because they can't consent to being brought into the world.

Are you saying that consent underpins morality. For example I don't think that it was immoral for my parents to have conceived me. If someone believes that they should have consented is it possible to remove said consent?

meathstevie

stefanovich wrote: »

Have you read this:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Better_Never_to_Have_Been

It’s on my list but to be honest, even the bleakness of the title makes me pause.

I suppose if Mr Benatar wants to undo the grievous mental harm and distress caused to him by his birth he can always go and undo the consequences of his birth.

He probably won’t do that because he’s too busy enjoying the proceeds of his book.

The logic of his argument as reflected in a nutshell in the Wikipedia article reminds me a bit of the following little pearl of wisdom: I fit in my clothes and my clothes fit in my suitcase so as a consequence I must fit in my suitcase.

meathstevie

BensMixed wrote: »

Yeah I never understood why people don't just adopt if they really want a child. I suppose it just shows that humans really are just animals, slaves to their genes in many ways at the end of the day.

Exactly, and why don’t you buy your meat in the supermarket so animals don’t have to be killed to make it.

Gruffalux

joeguevara wrote: »

How can something that doesn't exist consent to exist. Before a child is conceived, how can they consent to the conception.

They cannot.
Not wanting children is fine. It is a personal choice. Often made for even joyful reasons such as being happy with ones present experience. Or not wanting another being to suffer.
Saying all consent to being is impossible and therefore implicitly immoral, however, is an extreme form of nihilism in my opinion. And surprisingly popular as an (under - developed) thought form these days.
It has to fundamentally put ones own existence under scrutiny first or else it is narcissistic. And from there it is predicated on the belief in a total purposeless to all existence. This has validity as a metaphysical approach. Some can work their ways contentedly through such foundational existential purposelessness to enlightenment a la Buddha or apophatic thought etc. But for others if not pursued in a disciplined way or if casually adopted as a fashionable idea I would think it is just a route to increasing apathy, boredom, cynicism and depression. (Whoa that made a b c d...my brain is filed alphabetically). It is perfect post modernism though.

BensMixed

meathstevie wrote: »

I suppose if Mr Benatar wants to undo the grievous mental harm and distress caused to him by his birth he can always go and undo the consequences of his birth.

He probably won’t do that because he’s too busy enjoying the proceeds of his book.

The logic of his argument as reflected in a nutshell in the Wikipedia article reminds me a bit of the following little pearl of wisdom: I fit in my clothes and my clothes fit in my suitcase so as a consequence I must fit in my suitcase.

I don't think you understand the argument he's making at all. To go and commit suicide he has to first overcome his self preservation instinct that is built into all of us. There's a likelihood that he will have to suffer physically, mentally and emotionally during the process of killing himself. He also knows his remaining family are going to suffer in those ways as a result of him doing that.

BensMixed

meathstevie wrote: »

Exactly, and why don’t you buy your meat in the supermarket so animals don’t have to be killed to make it.

I don't eat meat and haven't for many a year you'll be happy to hear.

stoneill

guitarzero wrote: »

Having children is unethical (antinatalism). It imposes a reality on a sentient being without its consent and it could experience extreme harm.

I think that you are overthinking something that doesn't need to be thought about. I think.

Wanderer78

stoneill wrote:

I think that you are overthinking something that doesn't need to be thought about. I think.

Damn right, I understand these lockdowns have been very difficult, but surely folks can pick better hobbies

BensMixed

Gruffalux wrote: »

They cannot.
Not wanting children is fine. It is a personal choice. Often made for even joyful reasons such as being happy with ones present experience. Or not wanting another being to suffer.
Saying all consent to being is impossible and therefore implicitly immoral, however, is an extreme form of nihilism in my opinion. And surprisingly popular as an (under - developed) thought form these days.
It has to fundamentally put ones own existence under scrutiny first or else it is narcissistic. And from there it is predicated on the belief in a total purposeless to all existence. This has validity as a metaphysical approach. Some can work their ways contentedly through such foundational existential purposelessness to enlightenment a la Buddha or apophatic thought etc. But for others if not pursued in a disciplined way or if casually adopted as a fashionable idea I would think it is just a route to increasing apathy, boredom, cynicism and depression. (Whoa that made a b c d...my brain is filed alphabetically). It is perfect post modernism though.

Well what is the purpose to existence? People by and large tend to create purpose and meaning to their existence in the form of religion and I'm sure that was done even by homo erectus, denisovians, neanderthals etc etc. They'd all have created their own belief systems to give their lives meaning and purpose just as modern humans have in their own religions but when you look at it if all of humanity destroyed itself the universe would be completely indifferent and continue as is. Clearly the universe itself doesn't care whether humanity exists. There doesn't seem to be any purpose other than fulfilling the pre-programmed biological drives that are built in.

joeguevara

Teofimo98 wrote: »

I just said they can never consent in my post you quoted.

Therefore it's immoral to have children because they can't consent to being brought into the world.

But the fact is that before it is possible to be a child or foetus, something exists before. It is the same as a cow can't consent to being a cow because it is a calf before.

Consent is the weakest argument of antinatalism because it has a precursor before a child is able to get the opportunity to consent.

Gruffalux

BensMixed wrote: »

Well what is the purpose to existence? People by and large tend to create purpose and meaning to their existence in the form of religion and I'm sure that was done even by homo erectus, denisovians, neanderthals etc etc. They'd all have created their own belief systems to give their lives meaning and purpose just as modern humans have in their own religions but when you look at it if all of humanity destroyed itself the universe would be completely indifferent and continue as is. Clearly the universe itself doesn't care whether humanity exists. There doesn't seem to be any purpose other than fulfilling the pre-programmed biological drives that are built in.

Purpose is for individuals to find themselves.
It is easier to have a story one participates in, for sure, I would love to be a believer, but for those of us who don't have a story then we find our own purpose - or not.

Just on an aside it is unprovable as to whether or not the ''universe'' cares about our existence. To presume one way or another is liable to error. You have described the Universe as anthropomorphic here, so I am just going with that. We exist. And improbably so. That is as much as we can know for the universes ''intentions''. You could look at it that the reality of our very improbable existence is a fair bit of investment in us already, if the Universe was to be the caring sort.

Who knows!!

stefanovich

meathstevie wrote: »

I suppose if Mr Benatar wants to undo the grievous mental harm and distress caused to him by his birth he can always go and undo the consequences of his birth.

He probably won’t do that because he’s too busy enjoying the proceeds of his book.

The logic of his argument as reflected in a nutshell in the Wikipedia article reminds me a bit of the following little pearl of wisdom: I fit in my clothes and my clothes fit in my suitcase so as a consequence I must fit in my suitcase.

It's certainly a book that I am planning to read as a challenge. I am very doubtful he'll convince me. Worth a read anyway - looks interested. The main thing putting me off right now is just how depressing it appears to be.

Ash.J.Williams

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rcx-nf3kH_M

BensMixed

Gruffalux wrote: »

Purpose is for individuals to find themselves.
It is easier to have a story one participates in, for sure, I would love to be a believer, but for those of us who don't have a story then we find our own purpose - or not.

Just on an aside it is unprovable as to whether or not the ''universe'' cares about our existence. To presume one way or another is liable to error. You have described the Universe as anthropomorphic here, so I am just going with that. We exist. And improbably so. That is as much as we can know for the universes ''intentions''. You could look at it that the reality of our very improbable existence is a fair bit of investment in us already, if the Universe was to be the caring sort.

Who knows!!

Of course anybody can create a purpose for themselves. Ultimately though it's a subjective thing. I anthropomorphize the universe as a way to simply to make the point clearer. We can debate about the implications of our existence and for all we know this is all a simulation and we may have already assumed too much. We come to these debates with our inbuilt biases like "life is good" and so on but is it really? If an artificial intelligence that was smarter than humans came into existence I'm not sure it would even consider life being better than death. Perhaps it would need to be programmed to have some kind of religion since it wouldn't have the biological biases in favor of life that humans have. This area could be quite an oversight from it's creators.

Gruffalux

BensMixed wrote: »

Of course anybody can create a purpose for themselves. Ultimately though it's a subjective thing. I anthropomorphize the universe as a way to simply to make the point clearer. We can debate about the implications of our existence and for all we know this is all a simulation and we may have already assumed too much. We come to these debates with our inbuilt biases like "life is good" and so on but is it really? If an artificial intelligence that was smarter than humans came into existence I'm not sure it would even consider life being better than death. Perhaps it would need to be programmed to have some kind of religion since it wouldn't have the biological biases in favor of life that humans have. This area could be quite an oversight from it's creators.

Believing death is better than life is a philosophy.

BensMixed

Gruffalux wrote: »

Believing death is better than life is a philosophy.

I think that's true for us humans who probably are incapable of complete objectivity in the way an artificial intelligence might be. It comes down to whether reason can be used to make a determination of which is more rational. I would think from a purely objective point of view that reason can't do that. Which would mean that objectively it can't be determined rationally that life is better than death. When I say objective I mean in contradistinction to our own subjectivity which includes all of our biases. The biological bias towards life could then be described as irrational. The highest insight of humanity might be that rational thought deduces that life is meaningless.