Dan-95

Okay i'm back, so i figured i would stop lurking and post something. Can't quite remember if there was already a thread about this before but w/e. Anyways, i recently heard about the anti-natalist debate and haven't really gotten into it, was hoping you guys could shed some light and if there was an anti-natalist here that would be even better. So far, the only point for anti-natalism i've heard is that life is an imposition, or something along those lines... Help me out here guys.

David Anderson from Mass Effect. He actually is more of a badass than you think.

I think it was a ps2 game but you can get it on steam. One of my friends is a massive fan of it. lol

@Blue In regards to the current generation, i'm from [middle-upper class] area. It is extremely easy to gain access to alcohol, smokes, pot, speed, you name it. You'd think that there would be less dealers with how easy it is to find them.

http://www.dragonagenexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=2771 modding mah DA:O

Not much to say really, just mention aspects of life in RPG format. I'll start off. Wikipedia: +2 INT, 1% chance confusion - self. Item. Smokes: +1 CHA, -10hp. Item. Computer Geek: +1 INT, -1 CHA. Passive feat.

@Wonsul I agree that there will be fuck-ups, but i dont think it will be because of protocol or chance (If handled and designed appropriately, i think it would be almost impossible for disaster.), but rather a certain party not following protocol and leaving things to chance. From past exprience, even strictist of international law wouldn't stop this.

Just scanning through the comments, i'd also like to mention an entropic view of the universe. Something to think about...

"That's a bad study" lol, social science FTW!

Just to clear up, i said it -can- impede, as in it's possible.

"So, why can't we create our own purpose?" Haven't we done so? If we aren't creating we're choosing someone else's anyway.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110525151059.htm DO what you want with it, imma go punch a puppy.

Simple enough, i am hoping for this thread to have both philosophical and scientific debate.(shout out to Axel) I, personally, mostly believe in the big bang model as it is practical to refference when most my peers accept scientific consensus(sometimes blindly =.=). I do find it unsettling, however, the underlying assumptions and various loopholes that go with it, so i do not accept it as an absolute truth, even when speaking scientifically. Just to clear up, these aren't so much errors as they are assumptions required for the model. Other (non scientific) answers seem baseless, i am listening for some though. Also, check out the biocentric universe, a mix between the two i guess. So the questions are: How do you think the universe originated? What perhaps makes your point superior or more likely than others?

To me that seems to come down to logic vs ethics. Logic to me prevails, but that does not mean we shouldn't accomodate the ethical side. In this case, you would explain to the sick man that his sacrifice would allow them survive or they will die together. Lots of thoughts going through my head right now, but basically there's a line we have to draw and a risk/reward factor to take in. To answer your question, i think the two can impede each other, but the extreme of the two aren't reasonable options and it depends on the context and general consensus.

Good for you smartguy, respect for admitting you were wrong(or semi wrong) Anyways, on the big bang theory; new thread? Scientific or philosophical or both? (Also tell me if i used the semi-colon correctly, never really used them.)