Are large differences in opinion desirable?

[Darandio]

Why is radamfi continuing with this completely futile argument? Has it not occurred to him yet that he's got six or seven people all arguing against him and that he's not going to convince a single one of them to agree with him?

Doesn't it just relate to the thread title, which was a question. If so, the answer is yes, job done and close thread.

 

[radamfi]

Why is radamfi continuing with this completely futile argument? Has it not occurred to him yet that he's got six or seven people all arguing against him and that he's not going to convince a single one of them to agree with him?

Most people are lurkers and don't post. There might be people reading this that may change their behaviour as a result and if that's the case then it is worth taking all the abuse and offensive insults from people like DarloRich.

 

[DaleCooper]

Most people are lurkers and don't post. There might be people reading this that may change their behaviour as a result and if that's the case then it is worth taking all the abuse and offensive insults from people like DarloRich.

Dream on.

 

[ComUtoR]

I dunno. I might get the snip next week.

 

[Darandio]

I dunno. I might get the snip next week.

I did, although it was well before this thread was born.

In fact, if i'd seen this thread beforehand I may well have cancelled, just to be rebellious.

 

[radamfi]

I have to admit, I am rather surprised that I'm getting such abuse on a forum which is normally quite tolerant and progressive, especially given the strong environmental bias of this forum.

 

[ComUtoR]

I have heard its part of the next EU directive on climate change

 

[Darandio]

I have to admit, I am rather surprised that I'm getting such abuse on a forum which is normally quite tolerant and progressive, especially given the strong environmental bias of this forum.

Abuse? Or large difference of opinion?

 

[ComUtoR]

I have to admit, I am rather surprised that I'm getting such abuse on a forum which is normally quite tolerant and progressive, especially given the strong environmental bias of this forum.

Where are you getting abused ?

You have posted your views and others have posted theirs. I certainly haven't posted anything abusive. Just counterpoint.

 

[radamfi]

Where are you getting abused ?

People have called me "crackers" and "attention seeking". I don't think people arguing for or against DOO are getting such remarks made at them. It was also said that people should not reason with my posts, as if my posts are less valid than others.

 

[ComUtoR]

I think you find that they are. (DOO supporters)

However, would you accept that a view point could be considered crackers but the person behind it quite intelligent and reasoned ? I think people see your viewpoint as crackers not your good self.

Attention seeking... well we are all internet warriors here. I think Dale has a black-belt in web-humor. You should see the grief we give the military loving trekkie. Forums tend to attract attention seekers. I don't agree with name-calling but there is valid reasoning between web forums and attention seekers.

 

[DarloRich]

People have called me "crackers" and "attention seeking". I don't think people arguing for or against DOO are getting such remarks made at them. It was also said that people should not reason with my posts, as if my posts are less valid than others.

Well they don't seem particularly rational or sensible! At least to my mind!

Comuter is right - I don't say you are mad ( I would tell you directly) I do think you express a view point that to the majority seems odd. While you are more than welcome to express that view do you accept my right to express my disagreement?

I maintain this thread is merely a platform for you to express your odd view point

 

[DynamicSpirit]

(Quotes addressed to Radamfi)

Where are you getting abused ?

You have posted your views and others have posted theirs. I certainly haven't posted anything abusive. Just counterpoint.

I rather think some of the stuff on here is borderline abusive.

Attention seeker of high quality.

Clearly abusive towards Radamfi as a person.

possibly - but it is long running wind up based on other threads.

Not directly abusive, but accusing people who express their opinions of 'winding up' is not really any different to accusing people of trolling. Not a nice way to respond to someone's opinions (may be justified if the person you are accusing has been repeatedly rude, but that's not the case here).

I would suggest not trying to argue the OP using logic and reason. You are wasting your time. He has a very odd and lonely approach to life and seems to resent being born. note:

Telling someone not to use logic or reason against a someone else is clearly an indirect way of insulting that 3rd person.

For what it's worth, I very much disagree with Radamfi's views. Personally I think life is a beautiful thing to be treasured, and I see many reasons to hope that in the future, humanity will be able to make life better (And I say that as someone who has in the past - luckily, now well in the past - been in some emotionally very bad places for long periods of time). I also think on a purely rational level, even taking out the emotional considerations, Radamfi's arguments don't logically stack up. However I would say the same is just as true for countless other people whom I've debated with on various issues on this forum. Probably there are some other people think the same of my views on some issues (Obviously, it goes without saying that those people are completely wrong ). But - unlike many people here - as far as I can see, Radamfi has always been unfailingly polite in the way he's put his arguments, and in the way he's framed his responses to other people. I have never seen him respond to other people's arguments by raising irrelevant side-issues or insulting either the poster or some public figure - which so many people here do. And yes, Radamfi tends to post frequently about his views on this issue, but hey, probably almost all of us have our own pet topics that we tend to post about a lot.

So while I disagree with Radamfi about life and humanity, I don't think his posts merit some of the uglier responses I've seen here.

 

[Railops]

Why is radamfi continuing with this completely futile argument? Has it not occurred to him yet that he's got six or seven people all arguing against him and that he's not going to convince a single one of them to agree with him?

Posters keep replying to him which just encourages him to post more gloom.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I maintain this thread is merely a platform for you to express your odd view point

He would be better posting on Netmums it's full of the most depressing posts.

 

[DaleCooper]

Is this the most self-referential thread ever?

 

[radamfi]

Another forum I read is this

http://forum.earlyretirementextreme.com/

There are a lot of Americans on there but it is frequented by people from all over the world. The decision to have or not have children is regularly discussed. The financial implications are clearly important, but the ethical and environmental consequences are also debated. It is not considered a weird thing to talk about.

 

[DarloRich]

There is nothing wrong in deciding to have or not have children - why I find your views odd is because your plan amounts to a suicide note for humanity! You would see us all wiped put in a generation for a reason that doesn't seem very rational and you seem to think this would be a good idea - it's bonkers

 

[DaleCooper]

Having neither the will nor stamina to attempt further logical argument I would normally turn to parody. In this case radamfi has made that unnecessary for which I'm grateful.

 

[DarloRich]

For the avoidance of doubt: I do no say you are bonkers or crackers. I say your views on this subject are odd and outlandish but that you are very welcome to hold and express them

 

[northwichcat]

There are a lot of Americans on there but it is frequented by people from all over the world. The decision to have or not have children is regularly discussed. The financial implications are clearly important, but the ethical and environmental consequences are also debated. It is not considered a weird thing to talk about.

Given people have different opinions I fail to see why some people are claiming it will wipe out humanity. Most of us still rely on animals for food and vegans are in a minority group and it has been that way for a very long time.

A reduction in the human population (through less births) would probably be a good thing in my opinion. Although, I can't see myself citing environmental reasons as a reason for not having children.

What's a weird thing to talk about depends on which country you live in and what year it is.

 

[radamfi]

One thing I do find a bit hypocritical from people who are very pro-child is that people are very surprised and get very angry when bad things happen.

Someone gets murdered. "Oh, this is unbelievable! How has society got to this?"

Someone dies of a disease. "The way this disease kills is so painful and horrible. We need to find a cure for it and fast."

Someone suffers from a relationship break-up. "I can't believe this is happening to me!"

These things are part and parcel of life and so if you accept the bringing of children into the world you should also accept and tolerate the downsides.

 

[TheKnightWho]

One thing I do find a bit hypocritical from people who are very pro-child is that people are very surprised and get very angry when bad things happen.

Someone gets murdered. "Oh, this is unbelievable! How has society got to this?"

Someone dies of a disease. "The way this disease kills is so painful and horrible. We need to find a cure for it and fast."

Someone suffers from a relationship break-up. "I can't believe this is happening to me!"

These things are part and parcel of life and so if you accept the bringing of children into the world you should also accept and tolerate the downsides.

So you think we shouldn't be angry or upset whenever bad things happen to us because, on a rational level, we know that they all must happen at some point?

That doesn't make an awful lot of sense when you consider that we aren't expecting those bad things at that particular point.

 

[radamfi]

So you think we shouldn't be angry or upset whenever bad things happen to us because, on a rational level, we know that they all must happen at some point?

That doesn't make an awful lot of sense when you consider that we aren't expecting those bad things at that particular point.

But those things happen at very frequent intervals, if not to you, to someone else and you can't fail to know about these events in today's world because of the extent of the media.

 

[TheKnightWho]

But those things happen at very frequent intervals, if not to you, to someone else and you can't fail to know about these events in today's world because of the extent of the media.

But you also can't expect people to care about all people equally, because we only have a localised perspective in terms of our beliefs and desires.

 

[DaleCooper]

One thing I do find a bit hypocritical from people who are very pro-child is that people are very surprised and get very angry when bad things happen.

Someone gets murdered. "Oh, this is unbelievable! How has society got to this?"

Someone dies of a disease. "The way this disease kills is so painful and horrible. We need to find a cure for it and fast."

Someone suffers from a relationship break-up. "I can't believe this is happening to me!"

These things are part and parcel of life and so if you accept the bringing of children into the world you should also accept and tolerate the downsides.

Ah, I get it now, everything bad is caused by someone who was once a baby. I can't believe no one has spotted the connection before. If there is a Nobel prize for philosophy then surely radamfi deserves it.

 

[Harbornite]

One thing I do find a bit hypocritical from people who are very pro-child is that people are very surprised and get very angry when bad things happen.

Someone gets murdered. "Oh, this is unbelievable! How has society got to this?"

Someone dies of a disease. "The way this disease kills is so painful and horrible. We need to find a cure for it and fast."

Someone suffers from a relationship break-up. "I can't believe this is happening to me!"

These things are part and parcel of life and so if you accept the bringing of children into the world you should also accept and tolerate the downsides.

This is one of the dumbest things I've heard on this forum. Those things are entirely negative, whereas bringing children into the world can be a positive thing. :roll:

 

[radamfi]

This is one of the dumbest things I've heard on this forum. Those things are entirely negative, whereas bringing children into the world can be a positive thing. :roll:

What I'm saying is that the people who say that having children is great are the ones who are complaining. I admit that there is both good and bad, as do most other people. Where there is a difference of opinion among philosophers is whether the good in life is enough compensation for the bad.

 

[Darandio]

What I'm saying is that the people who say that having children is great are the ones who are complaining.

And you know this because???

 

[DynamicSpirit]

What I'm saying is that the people who say that having children is great are the ones who are complaining. I admit that there is both good and bad, as do most other people.

(my emphasis)

Are they? Do you have any empirical evidence that people who believe having children is great are any more inclined to complain about the bad events such as the ones in your examples than are people who do not wish to have children?

Where there is a difference of opinion among philosophers is whether the good in life is enough compensation for the bad.

Is this correct? I don't know a huge amount of philosophy, but from what little reading I have done, I haven't got any impression that there is any significant debate within mainstream philosophy on the question of whether the bad outweighs the good in life. In fact, I don't recall the subject even coming up in what I've read. Given that there is no objective way to measure either levels of badness or levels of goodness, it's difficult to see that any such discussion would be particularly fruitful.

 

[TheKnightWho]

This seems to be an entirely utilitarian viewpoint, where radamfi thinks that the highest possible utility is 0, where none of us exist.

To be honest, I think it's nuts.