Discussion Life is Not Sacred

[Final Escape]

Are you talking about the debate Sam had with Benatar?
I think Harris is the most serious thinker ,at least on youtube i have seen so far.
In case you missed it,there was a recent debate between him and Peterson ,at a stage in Canada i think.Peterson got demolished.
Harris does not try to hide behind difficult words and act all serious.Peterson often responds with "it depends by what you mean by" or "its really complicated".
As much as i respect Peterson,and he has done great things,he tries to serve a lukewarm good news message that appeals to the masses.His latest book,seems to be a feelgood self-help sillyness book.

Harris on the other hand aims to find truth and evidence much more seriously.He does not care if its bad news or not.
Also he gave Benatar a real hard time in the debate with him.I dont think another interviewer has ever put Benatar under more pressure.
Harris has a knack for getting to the core of the issues.

I prefer Jordan Peterson

 

[TAW122]

@Partial-Elf I agree with your post. In regards to your points, for the first one, I believe that even the people on the political left should take religious connotations out of politics. While there is secularity in the world, too often does religious elements come into places where it has no business to begin with.

On the second point, I agree with you and ironically the moment you go that direction, people's logical mind and reasoning just goes out the window, they turn around and either say "You can't compare that.", "That's different.", "(insert ad hominem attacks)", or just stops responding all together. What they just did would be considered intellectual dishonesty as they are only willing to include negative things when it's convenient for their claim but exclude it when it's not. Alternatively they also cherry-pick (which is akin to intellectual dishonesty) things that fit them or their arguments. Sometimes they even straw man and red herring when you try to get logical and respond directly to them, in other words, evading the point, beating around the bush, etc. Fuck having discussions with people like those, they're too emotional to be reasoned with.

Anyways, back on track from that tangent..

For the third point, yes, I think a lot of abuse survivors and the victims of bullying (myself included) often get minimized, downplayed, pitied (in a negative/pejorative way), and then of course been told to move on. Sometimes people even gaslight and try to emotional blackmail others, and if called out on their gaslighting behavior, they get defensive and nasty. This was something I had to endure even in the present day, which is all the more reason I not only want to ctb, but leave a big mess (that's another story though). Seriously fuck people who minimize, downplay, try to sweep things under the rug, and gaslight others who have suffered through.

Finally, yes, the whole 'life is sacred' claim is bullshit and has already gone through it's lifecycle (no pun intended). We are overpopulated and we are at a point where the hyper competitiveness of the world as well as resources are leading to lower qualities of life and creating new problems rather than solving old ones. I don't plan on having any children which should be a few less future potential victims brought into this hellish world.

 

[Smilla]

I appreciate that. I've been thinking of advocating for this belief (or at least Death with Dignity since that's where we're at as a culture) in other ways for the moment. For example: do you think it would be within the rules to start a Death with Dignity mega thread where people stay abreast of all the legislative and news stories around humane dying? We could also use it to precipitate political action by encouraging members to call or message their legislator, giving them scripts, etc. or possibly making them aware of places to donate to support specific bills. I've done some organizing around other causes before and see some possibilities here but don't have a good enough sense of whether it'd be allowed and engaged with

Great ideas! I don't know if this is the forum for it (afterall most of us here are already "converted") but I bet you could start your own website like Inmendham. Your message would undoubtably be delivered in a more "mainstream" fashion, thus reaching perhaps a wider audience.

I prefer Jordan Peterson

Oh God no.

 

[Partial-Elf]

Are you talking about the debate Sam had with Benatar?
I think Harris is the most serious thinker ,at least on youtube i have seen so far.
In case you missed it,there was a recent debate between him and Peterson ,at a stage in Canada i think.Peterson got demolished.
Harris does not try to hide behind difficult words and act all serious.Peterson often responds with "it depends by what you mean by" or "its really complicated".
As much as i respect Peterson,and he has done great things,he tries to serve a lukewarm good news message that appeals to the masses.His latest book,seems to be a feelgood self-help sillyness book.

Harris on the other hand aims to find truth and evidence much more seriously.He does not care if its bad news or not.
Also he gave Benatar a real hard time in the debate with him.I dont think another interviewer has ever put Benatar under more pressure.
Harris has a knack for getting to the core of the issues.

Lots of things to respond to in there. I haven't seen Peterson v Harris but I'll listen today or tomorrow. Doesn't surprise me at all that Harris would win–I agree that he's much more grounded in reality and much better at sticking to the topic at hand. Peterson was very helpful to me at one point but I don't like how he tends to feed into some really obnoxious right wing pundits like Ben Shapiro. I haven't listened to Harris too much to date.

I also agree that Benatar's conversation with Harris was 100x more productive and mature than Benetar's conversation with Peterson. However, I was really frustrated that Sam kept straying away from the argument at hand, which was anti natalism. I bet 2/3 of the conversation was Harris trying to pin Benetar down on issues that he explicitly said were not part of his position (death for those who are already living—as opposed to the unborn—being the main one that comes to mind).

As someone with a somewhat academic background, it's very obvious when people don't stick to the argument at hand. Sam was better about that than JBP but he still kept going into two or three different arguments that Benatar would have to patiently defuse and the redirect to ANTI NATALISM lol.

 

[Partial-Elf]

Great ideas! I don't know if this is the forum for it (afterall most of us here are already "converted") but I bet you could start your own website like Inmendham. Your message would undoubtably be delivered in a more "mainstream" fashion, thus reaching perhaps a wider audience.

I think the best place for me to start will be to get involved with the Death with Dignity organization in my state. Maybe write a few newspaper editorials... I know that influencing legislation is what has to be done but it's particularly tough here. A worthy challenge I suppose.

I also wish I could challenge the Baker Act cause I think it's really messed up. Definitely less support for that one though

 

[Smilla]

I think the best place for me to start will be to get involved with the Death with Dignity organization in my state. Maybe wrote a few newspaper editorials... I know that influencing legislation is what has to be done but it's particularly tough here. A worthy challenge I suppose

Hugs to you. That would be wonderful, am sorry I won't be around to read your editorials, I am sure they will be well written and persuasive.

 

[Partial-Elf]

@Partial-Elf I agree with your post. In regards to your points, for the first one, I believe that even the people on the political left should take religious connotations out of politics. While there is secularity in the world, too often does religious elements come into places where it has no business to begin with.

On the second point, I agree with you and ironically the moment you go that direction, people's logical mind and reasoning just goes out the window, they turn around and either say "You can't compare that.", "That's different.", "(insert ad hominem attacks)", or just stops responding all together. What they just did would be considered intellectual dishonesty as they are only willing to include negative things when it's convenient for their claim but exclude it when it's not. Alternatively they also cherry-pick (which is akin to intellectual dishonesty) things that fit them or their arguments. Sometimes they even straw man and red herring when you try to get logical and respond directly to them, in other words, evading the point, beating around the bush, etc. Fuck having discussions with people like those, they're too emotional to be reasoned with.

Anyways, back on track from that tangent..

For the third point, yes, I think a lot of abuse survivors and the victims of bullying (myself included) often get minimized, downplayed, pitied (in a negative/pejorative way), and then of course been told to move on. Sometimes people even gaslight and try to emotional blackmail others, and if called out on their gaslighting behavior, they get defensive and nasty. This was something I had to endure even in the present day, which is all the more reason I not only want to ctb, but leave a big mess (that's another story though). Seriously fuck people who minimize, downplay, try to sweep things under the rug, and gaslight others who have suffered through.

Finally, yes, the whole 'life is sacred' claim is bullshit and has already gone through it's lifecycle (no pun intended). We are overpopulated and we are at a point where the hyper competitiveness of the world as well as resources are leading to lower qualities of life and creating new problems rather than solving old ones. I don't plan on having any children which should be a few less future potential victims brought into this hellish world.

Thanks so much for this in depth response and for getting where I'm coming from. I get so tired of the constant imposition of other people's values on my life, whether from religious, doctors, politicians, family... I don't think I'll be having children either.

That "buck up, kiddo!" attitude they tend to have is the worst

 

[Partial-Elf]

Hugs to you. That would be wonderful, am sorry I won't be around to read your editorials, I am sure they will be well written and persuasive.

No need to apologize for that! Especially not to me. I will be ctb as soon as I feel like my obligations have been met, but until then... I'll do what I can.

 

[Misanthrope]

The idea that human life is sacred is something that's part of our cultural fabric and is rarely challenged. It is often the justification pro lifers use to control others' actions, whether those others want to ctb as many of us do, die with dignity due to old age or terminal illness, or make certain reproductive choices. From my experience, even those on the political left would almost always unthinkingly agree that life is sacred if you asked them outside of a political context. I have a few criticisms I'd like to make against this concept.

First: Sacredness is a concept for the religious, being defined as "connected with God (or the gods) or dedicated to a religious purpose and so deserving veneration." For the non religious person, then, sacredness does not apply. Any beliefs that religious people hold about what is and is not sacred should not be forced on others through legislation or otherwise.

The argument can be made that things like family, true friendship, helping others, romantic love, and the creation and appreciation of art should still be considered sacred in a non religious worldview, but I would disagree: there are better terms that do not have troubling religious connotations to them. For example, I would say that these activities have the potential to be a profoundly beautiful and meaningful part of the human experience, but I would not call them "sacred."


Second: If all human life is sacred, that must mean that Hitler's life was sacred, which I think most would disagree with. Here Hitler could be replaced with any more or less objectively terrible person.

Third: It's obviously problematic to tell a person who has been abused, neglected, raped, tortured, oppressed, or made to otherwise undergo a severe amount of mental or physical pain that "life is sacred regardless." Not only do you display a shocking lack of empathy, but you also minimize the trauma they've experienced in a way that borders on gaslighting.

This concept that human life is sacred is an obvious and unwelcome remnant of our primitive religious past. This belief would have been helpful for them at that time in the same way that the commandment "be fruitful and multiply" would be: a people who did not prioritize the continuation of life would quickly be wiped out under such difficult circumstances. However, the belief that life is sacred has outlived its usefulness and continues on only as a cruel and unreasonable demand in today's world.

This was phenomenally well put! I enjoyed your succinct points. I hope you continue in your editorial efforts and can bring some rationalism to the dignity in dying debate. It is certainly long overdue, although it seems America has a lot more entrenched barriers to contend with. Regardless I wish you strength in the fight.

 

[Partial-Elf]

This was phenomenally well put! I enjoyed your succinct points. I hope you continue in your editorial efforts and can bring some rationalism to the dignity in dying debate. It is certainly long overdue, although it seems America has a lot more entrenched barriers to contend with. Regardless I wish you strength in the fight.

Thanks! Frustrating that this isn't even in the top tier of political issues discussed, even though it effects everyone so profoundly

 

[Pulpit2018]

Remember to clean your room before you CTB ,bucko!!