(August 19, 2013 at 6:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: Ultimately, you both would be dead. That is what the word "ultimately" is alluding to.
So no, YOU would not be better off, for YOU would not exist, because YOU would be dead.
Why the hell would I care about whether or not it "ultimately" matters? "Ultimately" meaning "after I'm dead". I care about it up to the point of my death - which includes now and the foreseeable future I expect to live through. And for that period, I would be better off - objectively so.
(August 19, 2013 at 6:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: I can be gracious to you and inform you I am not concerned about people eating poo.
In order to be charitable, I will even grant that what you say is true.
I will then ask:
So what?
Ultimately, you, and the poo eater suffer the same fate. He may die sooner than you, but he has died doing what gives him pleasure. You may have lived longer.
The problem you have here is that you assume that long life is something everyone desires like you. That simply is not the case. Some would rather go down in flames doing what they love than to flicker out like a candle.
Let me be charitable and grant that what you say is true.
So what?
You assume everyone wants to live a long life.
This is clearly incorrect. You might want to live a long life, others may like shooting heroin all day and having unprotected sex with anyone who will lay with them. These people care not for how long they live, but how much pleasure they derive while they live.
And why would their wants and desires be exempt from moral and rational judgment? They haven't died doing what makes them happy - unless being sick and diseased and in pain is what makes them happy. If "pleasure now" is their only consideration, then soon enough - as the future turns to present - "pleasure now" wouldn't be possible for them. The whole point of living according to a rational code of ethics is to choose your wants and desires such that you'd have consistent happiness over a long period of time. Therefore, for such people to ignore their own future happiness in face of current "wants and desires" is, in itself, the wrong thing to do. And that will result in them objectively having less meaning in their lives than someone who has considered that.
(August 19, 2013 at 6:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: It is relevant to you. It is not relevant to everyone.
If they are alive, then it should be relevant to them.
(August 19, 2013 at 6:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: Assuming someone wants to be rational. There are many that could care less about being rational, and rather, are more concerned about having pleasure.
The two are not independent. One cannot ensure pleasure without being rational about what pleases them.
(August 19, 2013 at 6:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: I have had several friends die from AIDS as a result of them having unprotected anal sex. The risks for contracting disease are increased when one engages in anal sex among other potential negative side effects.
Those are the risks of unprotected sex - not anal sex. And the same risks go for unprotected vaginal sex. There is an easy way to remedy those risks altogether, thus removing any "potential negative side-effects" altogether.
(August 19, 2013 at 6:35 pm)discipulus Wrote: The anus is not a reproductive organ. Any physician will tell you that. The anus and large intestine are for the removal of waste, not sexual intercourse.
Your mouth is not a reproductive organ either. Neither are breasts, feet or any number of erogenous zones on your body. And yet, they play a part in sexual intercourse. No reason why the same doesn't apply to your ass.
