/sci/ - Science & Math

In times of peak oil it is immoral.

>>4678149
Yes, but no more than 2.

It's as selfish as fuck is what it is.

Parents are freshly responsible for bestowing inevitable death upon their creation (and any subsequent 'creations' that kid might have), their bundle of joy is just starting it's journey to the grave, be it in it's cot the next night, necking a bottle of bleach in a few months, bouncing off a car bonnet in a couple of years, being knifed in the street by some urchin, a terrible accident, a terminal malady, a congenital defect that turns up out of the blue, heart attack, cancer, or even just coughing and pissing its last in a nursing home with artificial bits where it's original bits have worn out.

They're also responsible for all the suffering their sprog will have to endure throughout it's existence, new life is an extended torture session kicked off by conspiring couplets who lay beyond the 'new life's' control, being a parent sounds twisted and an inherently repellent position.

Next as a parent in a first world country your kid is basically going to cost a fuckton of money and thus effort, which could be put to much better and constructive use elsewhere, a baby/child is another little black hole on the worlds resources.

Clad in clothes mass-stitched by a faceless Indonesian loli, her back stained with belt buckle bruises from the time she accidentally stitched her thumb into a mini Nike trainer and ruined a whole pair with her filthy blood.

She had to blow three greasy hairy men and go without food for a week just to keep her job.

Meanwhile new babby is going to a nursery, and getting pushchairs and toys and clothes and food and books it can't understand and trash bags full of transitory shit that will be useless in 6 months. All the while shitting and pissing it's self with glee and being a drooling moron.

>>4678740

And then it grows up, spunks several other fucktons of your cash up the wall and hates you, resents you for it's creation and waits for you to die so it can have your money and sell all your cool shit.

It's a fucking bum deal is baby making, unless of course a new baby is a girl, in which case she might be hot when she's older and in that scenario only is it most definitely is worth the gamble (but if she turns out to be 'meh', or a howler then do the world a favour and gas her while she's asleep eh, thanks)

>>4678149
Do you want others to have children?

Kants morals are relative.

Is it moral to have a tulpa?

>>4678149

Depends on the underlying maxim, faggot.

'We should always try to further the survival of our species' is a perfectly rational and universalisable maxim.

Can Kant experience qualia?

>>4678743
erm, pardon?
because it sounds to me like you're considering banging your own daughter!

>>4678765
Yes, and?

>>4678766

>>4678763
He's dead.

>>4678763
No, he kan't.

Only if the child experiences qualia.

It's only moral to have children if your genes are worth contributing to the race, and you can raise them to be intelligent and civilized people.

In fact if you can produce children under those circumstances, it's immoral not to have them.

What makes OP think that pure philosophy belongs on a science board?

>>4678765
I never mentioned incest, it's your filthy mind that generated that opinion.

My position as a childless male is: If your daughter isn't hot then taking her out of the picture would only improve it's quality for all of us.

>>4678838
>It's only moral to have children if your genes are worth contributing to the race, and you can raise them to be intelligent and civilized people.
and who judges them to be worthy? how intelligent is intelligent enough?

>>4678847
ah, so you want a hot daughter, but not for yourself, just as a 'favour' to all the guys out there, no?

>>4678848

Intelligent people judge them obviously.

Basically anyone not majoring in zoology.

>>4678848
The level of intelligence required to function and contribute in the technological civilization we have is clear. And everyone born who doesn't meet that minimum requirement is just a burden on everyone else.

>>4678856

>>4678841

Fundie is never late to philosophy threads

>>4678853
No I want OTHER people to have only hot daughters, that's the crux, the meat, the very bedrock of my thesis.

As I mentioned I find parenthood a repellent role.

>>4678870
ONLY hot daughters?
you do realise, im sure, that hotness is relative,
we cant all be hot, because if we were, then we're all just average.
'hot' only has any meaning if theres a few hambeasts to compare them to.

>>4678878

It's not entirely relative.

We've evolved to have generally similar things we look for in a mate, as shit genes can lead to weak offspring.

We can make a rational decision to ignore that and pursue a mate based on other criteria, but 'hotness' is a physical thing.

>>4678896
but you must realise that a 9/10 from today, in a world of 10/10's would appear ugly by comparison?

>>4678896
>We can make a rational decision

Only if we assume free will.

if a person is able to provide for the children then yes.
i would not want my children to go through the things i have in life.

but as a religious man i am taught that god will provide.

i guess everybody has there own life to lead to become the person they are.

so full circle, i just selfishly hope my life becomes better as some vindication of belief.

i lol'd

>>4678915
>but as a religious man i am taught that god will provide.
>on /sci/
best be trollin'

>>4678915
>as a religious man

You should be euthanized.

>>4678878

>ONLY hot daughters?

Minus the question-mark that's my motto right there.

Yes! You've got to think big to get halfway decent results.

>you do realise, im sure, that hotness is relative,
>we cant all be hot, because if we were, then we're all iust average.
>'hot' only has any meaning if theres a few hambeasts to compare them to.

Yeah if we'd never encountered a hambeast that would be true but as we all know there is an over abundance of those porkers waddling around at the minute.

>>4678908

A rational decision can be made whether or not it is a product of free will.

It can be objectively rational, as in it is the product of logical thought, but still be simply one step in a complex causal chain.

>>4678923

no not really trolling.

irl its just an easy hit for the opposition.

full circle again.

its like those guys that think god will save them in a dire situation.

it does not work like that irl.

well he may save them but its often at my expense by the look of it.

i lol'd again.

so the parenting question.

lol

it is morally acceptable as long as there is somebody there to provide for them or provision in place to provide for them.

>>4678947
No, it can't. If it is the product of determinism, then it's not the product of logical thought. That would be an illusion.

>>4678956

Logical thought is still logical thought even if it had to be that way, much the same as irrational thought is still irrational if predetermined.

The facts are the facts, and logic takes these facts into account to reach some conclusion. The possibility that you using the facts to reach the conclusion is predetermined makes it no less logical, just inevitable.

>>4678969

you just killed free will.

wtf!

>>4678969
The concept of "logical thought" becomes meaningless in determinism. Everything is "logical", when predetermined by a causal chain of events.

>>4678981

like chemistry.

>>4678981

The causal chain itself is logical in execution, but a single agent can be said to be acting irrationally even if it is inevitable.

As I said, logical and non-logical thought are still as they were - it's just that individual agents perpetrating either are predetermined to do so.

If someone acts against the facts or evidence, or in a way that is contradictory to their stated 'will', they can be said to be irrational.

The fact that it was an inevitable effect of some complex multi-causal chain makes it no less irrational.

>>4678978

Sorry brah.

>>4679004
Nothing that originates from a logically consistent predetermined chain can be irrational.

>>4679028

Fundie, why do you come here if you can only post philosophy BS.

>>4679064
I don't come here for philosophy. I come here for science and math.

is determinism proof of god?

it seems like your implying predestination.

in which case who's will is being served?

mine was broke ages ago.

its been like Pinocchio in reverse.

>>4679080
I only post them when it's necessary. For example when someone misunderstands the limitations of science.

>>4679068

And post qualia and other philosophical ideas.

>>4679079

Who says there has to be a will that's being served?

Predestination, however complex or simple, is in no way proof of any God or Gods.

>>4679028

Of course it can. From outside the agent the facts are coherent - say the fact that vaccinations work - however if that agent, through whatever causal events they've experienced, chooses to ignore the facts and act in a hysterical manner and avoid vaccinations they are being irrational.

>>4679097
In determinism the "agent" cannot choose.

>>4679086

well in the case of people interacting they all want something to happen.

character motivation.

wait we may not have established a god but maybe there is case for religion.

but this directly contradicts determinism by saying that "god" is in need of nobody.

immediately removing man from "god status"

because man always needs.

also free will as a concept.


determinism still stands, although it stands against religion.

a battle of wills oh the lol's

>>4678907
>>4678907
Are you saying that a 300lb woman being in a sea of 800lb women makes her suddenly hot?

Listen elizabeth, why don't you take your 5/10 (at best) average looks back into the kitchen instead of trying convince us a woman like you can look hot too guys if there's enough ugly people around?

You're fucked up in the head then.

>>4679104

The 'agent' is still 'choosing', it's just that their choice is predetermined.

Determinism merely states that the agent could not have chosen otherwise, not that the agent didn't choose.

>>4679127

well the case in point is if you take a chemical reaction.

it almost always works in the same way under the same laws.

but take a set of twins and its a different story.

it does point to an existence of a god, it is very mush implied.

the chain of events continues and the variables change.

the end point is what exactly.

maybe determinism is not at odds with religion, only for those that choose for it to be so.

>>4679148

I'm sorry but your preconceived notions of what determinism implies do not make it true.

Determinism states that we live in a universe governed by cause and effect, and as such are subject to the same governance. This in no way implies the existence of any deity.

As for the chemical reaction analogy, it is much easier to make sure all other variables are kept constant as it is a simple causal chain with a small number of variables.

A human being is much more complex, and as such there are more variables that if changed alter the end effect - be in genetics, nutrition, environment, socialisation etc.

The complexity of a causal chain doesn't imply the existence of God. It just means it's complex.

For short No it's not For long CBA

>>4679182

yes but there is no single interaction.

there is an infinite number of reactions of cause and effect that overlap.

if at the point of overlapping there is any statistical pattern or non randomness or determinism then it implies not a complex system but something else.

simple cause and effect is governed by what exactly?

does david beat goliath?

its not an irrational choice.

>>4679221

>Implying everything comes down to an infinite regress.
>Implying durr durr herp durr hurr.