Saturday, March 30, 2013

Inmendham Buries Himself On Ethics. Again.

Inmendham responded to my latest video. I urge everyone to watch his response here. I will no longer be leaving comments on Inmendham's videos (as some of my comments will continue getting spam-marked) which means I'll be refuting his molesting of context and timelines here. This will be a time-stamped, point-by-point contextualization of the arguments and replies. My initial hope was to simply post this as an "update" on the underbar of my last video, but YT won't accept it. I'm guessing it's too long for an underbar.

Before I proceed with the time-stamps, I'll address a reoccurring complaint from Inmendham. He kept pointing out that my thought experiments weren't at all relevant because I initiated every bit of this by showing up on a video of his where he had set the tone. He accused me of defiling this tone and asserted that he doesn't give a shit about any hypothetical scenario in my blog. He repeatedly stated that he wouldn't have bothered with anything on my blog had I not commented on his video. How then, are we to explain this video he made months ago? This is a response to a blog I wrote, riddled with those very conjectural events which he's now purportedly disinterested in. This response I received from him was entirely unsolicited, so he is actually the one who started this by replying to my "AntiNatalism And Dissection" blog back in December. I commented on that video response and told him that I would be following up with him "hopefully soon". Well, that "soon" turned out to be months as I had a hectic schedule up until mid March (and still do in some respects). Rather than following up on a three month old video of his, I left two comments on his brand new Objective Morality video (where he specifically argued for the very net-equation I argued against in the blog he replied to). I didn't think that me commenting there would matter to him at all, because we have evidence of him having displayed interest in my previous offerings, just a couple of months prior. I wouldn't even be mentioning any of this now if it hadn't been for him making a colossal fuss over my commenting on his video out of nowhere. I don't do YouTube consistently, so of course I comment "out of nowhere". Was I supposed to send a week-long notice ahead of time?

01:00 Inmendham references my channel icon and uses it to point out how ironic it is to him that this entire "Game" conversation is obnoxious to me. What's obnoxious to me is Inmendham's dwelling on values-as-facts, along with his churlish insistence that any AntiNatalist with a pluralistic outlook on ethics has a superficial view of AntiNatalism, and is an insult to philosophy to boot. He then says that I don't view value to be at all real, which aims to suggest that I don't view suffering to be real. Consult the underbar of my 2nd to last video for an explanation of why this is an incongruous connection to draw.

05:50 No, he cannot maintain that he set the barrier confines for what's on the discourse table, because he already took my argumentation bait by addressing my hypothetical scenarios for three days straight, before suddenly deciding that it's not his conversation and that it's not worth paying attention to. I wasn't the one who did the rearranging, he was.

08:30 He complains about me possibly quote mining him. In my video, I started playing what he was saying at the "That's what it all comes down to" mark in his video because it led to me missing absolutely nothing of essence and was the perfect opener from which he went on to misrepresent my position by bringing up small-pox. I never engage in contextomy, and he can play everything he said prior to that part if he wishes to corroborate that as being true. I pressed him on the small-pox because he all too often ventures off into the putting-words-in-opponent's-mouth territory and it needs to stop. Me pointing it out, may dissuade him in the future.

09:40 Albert Einstein jaywalking analogy fail as jaywalking immediately necessitates a societal context. Einstein also wouldn't do what Inmendham thinks he would in terms of self-sacrifice, as anyone who is at all familiar with even his most well-known quotes already knows.

10:20 Inmendham claims that I said we can never come up with an answer to net equation questions. The fatidical scenarios posed by me guaranteed crystal-clear outcomes, and I went on to provide reasons for their objectionable means/ends despite the net gain.

13:40 Nice to see he's still evading my "1,000,001 units > 1,000,000 units" 1-Unit-Of-Net-Gain scenario for which there is no multiplier effect, by rearranging it to fit his "If I go to hell, I can save 1 million people from hell" scenario, which is oriented around a valuing of individual-per-individual sorted metrics, rather than plain units. This is an inconsistent route for him to take considering how often he's been pointing out that individuals aren't the goal-post. Then he lies about how I was the one who changed his version to my version. Anyone can look at the timelines of our exchanges. I brought my version up first. He changed it to his because he doesn't want to deal with the hideousness of the net-principle when it's applied to one unit of net gain.

15:10 He finally says "OK, I wasn't able to migrate myself to this one idiotic thought experiment where I'm thinking of one individual and its consequences on itself". I thank him for admitting this, but he did migrate to it days ago, and reluctantly made his answers clear. Then he wanted to focus on the societal framework only. I think it's clear why.

16:05 Now he truculently points out that his thought experiments had certainty built into them. Okay. So did mine. Does he still not realize that mine had certainty built into them as well? I couldn't have been more clear in all my comments and in the previous blogs. And he calls me the cheater here. Re-trace your steps Inmendham.

17:20 He again states he made "Million-to-one profitability" arguments. But as I keep pointing out, if he's arguing for the net principle (which he is) he needs to account for my "1 unit of net gain" scenarios as well. This is how principles work, regardless of how badly he wants to run away from them in their worst hour.

19:20 He's still coming up with his own scenarios. Now it's one for fifty. He so blatantly doesn't care to deal with the net-principle ongoingly, despite knowing full well that it's applicable to every last one of my event constructs.

21:00 If we're dealing with a one-million-to-one profit, in terms of individuals, where all 1 million and 1 individuals can be said to have done nothing to get thrown in hell, nor do any of them like it in hell whatsoever: Then I would insert the 1 outside individual into hell in order to release the 1 million individuals out of hell, and not fret the absence of capitulation on the part of the 1 individual. This is a no-brainier for me, not because I believe the 1 individual is Obligated to save the million due to an imagined corollary, but because I simply prefer to see 1 million individuals saved in light of us having already established that every last one of them is equally undeserving of hell, as none of them signed up for it. The ratio here is one I find admissible. The distinctions are ultimately arbitrary though, not fact-based. The problem for Inmendham, is that the net-principle is still suitable for my "1,000,001 > 1,000,000" de-individualized harm units scenario. Inmendham has made it clear that he doesn't view ethical discourse from the standpoint of individuals, but harm units, and should therefore either place a magnifying glass on scenarios like the one I constructed, or drop the net-principle.

Some more harping on the fact that I commented to him 7 days ago. The pretense of him caring about who started what, is even more transparent the moment we consider that he stated he's going to be watching me like a hawk from here on out, and initiate combat on a plethora of other issues I delve into, regardless of what those issues may be. Hilarious. Contrived disagreement, here we come.

22:35 He says I called it a "desert" Island. No, I called it a deserted (uninhabited) Island. Learn to read Gary. It's obviously not a desert because I stipulated that the adult lives on a vegan diet. The Island is not barren.

23:55 He says I changed the topic. No. Inmendham's core topic revolves around the actualization of the net-principle, as he outlined in his "Objective Morality" video that I initially commented on. The scenarios I apply to this principle are continuity friendly.

30:20 Now he's going on about how these are impossible to deal with, because we as observers lose sight of the margins at a certain point. This would be a fine point, had he not been talking about my subsidiary thought experiments wherein I evoked conditions that made it possible for us to know the ins and outs of such margins. So this is also a non-sequitur.

32:50 The subject on the Island being competent doesn't undo the fact that we can cultivate the guaranteed knowledge of the conspicuously absent domino-effects we've already been assured of, in order to confirm that a net gain comes to fruition in my scenarios just as we do with his.

He contends that I'm now bound to "The principle of the Autonomy crap" regardless of the particular individual's tributary arrangement versus any other kind. The problem with this, is that I'm not the one binding myself to all-encompassing moral principles here. This is what I've been trying to explain to Inmendham all along, by pointing out the irresolvability of various moral entanglements. Not due to psychology, but discrete thoughtfulness. This doesn't mean that one must remain equidistant from all conceivable ought-statements. If I see it fitting to resist a given status quo, while others wish it eternized, one side will end up losing out. I'll do my best to make sure that it's not my side. Analogizing ethical arguments made by those who reject absolutist moral codes, to arguments over ice cream flavors or music, misses the point entirely because with ethics the crux of the matter often comes down to legality. It's either/or, unlike with music or food, where you enjoying your favorite band or ice-cream flavor won't in any way prevent someone else from being able to enjoy their own favorites. But if one's preference for vanilla could only be actualized through the outlawing of strawberry and chocolate, it's easy to see how arguing over ice cream flavors wouldn't seem as trivial anymore.

35:15 Again, he only wants to deal with the simplistic million-to-one cases, and not the pesky minutiae. If that's the case, quit referring to ethics as mathematics. Unless you also think that we shouldn't deal with complex mathematical problems, due to their own accompanying sets of minutiae.

40:00 He says we prevent athletes from taking steroids because we don't want them harming themselves. No, we prevent them because they are competing with other athletes, and some of them want no part of steroids but would get pressured into taking them in order to keep up with the ones who are genuinely content with taking them.

55:15 I'm talking about three for the price of one for the individual buyer that Inmendham himself analogized this to, and he says "No, not for the buyer, but for civilization". Stunning levels of cognitive dissonance at play here. To the bitter end of this, he has repeatedly failed to heed a most pertinent fact that I've tried to bring to the forefront; That deserted Islands are not Civilizations. Or did I miss a memo?

I urge Inmendham to revisit my two comments from seven days ago. He'll find that I brought up the Island scenario right off the bat, in one of those two comments. Inmendham should know this better than anyone else, because he argued that very comment of mine in a 25 minute response video. Contrary to the false impression Inmendham's regular viewers have now been left with, the Island scenario is not some curveball that I just threw in willy-nilly once the debate was well under way. The Island scenario is the cornerstone of our dispute, because the scenario's purpose is to try and make Inmendham second-guess his own application of 'Negative Utilitarianism' by taking the Negative Utilitarian formula to its bitter end, which entails saving people from their own purported imprudence. Inmendham plainly admitted that if the subject stranded on the island stands to accomplish nothing in the way of harm reduction, a rational thinker shouldn't hesitate to painlessly/instantly put the subject out of his own misery. Once again I'll stress that readers are encouraged to judge for themselves by reviewing the back and fourths between myself and Inmendham. No one should just take my word for it.

Inmendham also continued butchering the word value, importuning that we accept it as not requiring a valuer. And why? Because to hell with its formal etymology, that's why. The moment we accept that 'valuing' something is synonymous with 'treasuring' something, the statement "Sentience creates value" reads as unintelligibly as the statement "Sentience creates treasure". I won't be belaboring this anymore, because proper use of the word value is there for all to read up on within the very wiki article Inmendham glanced at while responding to my original objection.

Keep up the sloppy paraphrasing Gary, you're good for it.



  1. It's sad to see Nietzsche leave behind Wagner.

    Antibullshitman has now left behind Inmendham.

    "Nietzsche admired Wagner's ability to express his own suffering and misery in short musical creations. He criticized Wagner's attempt to produce large works."

  2. Inmendham has the problem of Hubris. In trying to win the argument he has gone far off the reservation of reason and entered into the land of dogmatic totalitarianism. Can you imagine if Inmendham had the powers of a dictator?

  3. Following on from the other two posters, I've always thought that ABM begins where Inmendham ends.

    The irony is amazing too that Gary's favourite cliches are "argue the argument", which he's clearly NOT doing, and his harping on about philosophy being all important while psychology has little to no importance, and yet as he's totally unable to make a rational dent in ABM's (or Tranquil87's) arguments, all he can do is bring out the enraged ad hominems about everyone being stupid and assholes. Sorry Gary, YOU are the very epitome of what you accuse everyone else to be. Do the decent thing, man up and admit you are wrong.


  4. There is no real autonomy and ABSM is clearly influenced by libertarian ideas that cannot deal with determinism. And Tranquil does not talk about this determinism problem either.

  5. the fucker has one rule for himself and one for everyone else. he can be as insulting as he likes, and distort someones position (whether intentional or thru negligence) but the moment someone voices disagreement with him on something, they're outcast.
    a major problem (but not the only one) is that he's trying to make the 50 V 50m equation an across the board truism, regardless of the fact those numbers are ridiculous, regardless of the fact you need god like future-vision to even entertain the question, regardless of possible nefarious intent on the part of the decider, each situation would be different. Hiroshima was 'not' a good example of imposing some harm to save more harm, other examples might be more legit. The fact he explicitly outlawed any nuance from the equation just makes it even more pointless of a thought experiment.


  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

  7. great blog. especially liked the part about outlawing strawberry icecream. im definitely up for that.. its rank.


  8. "Can you imagine if Inmendham had the powers of a dictator?"

    He'll likely deny this (unless he's in Stickam/TC), but I have no doubt that he'd be willing to apply any means necessary to usurp his way there in order to actualize his coveted ends. I also predict that his re-writing of the Constitution (if one even remains) will lead to amendments like "Not Acting = Acting" and "Mankind is your business".

    "determinism problem"

    There is no determinism problem. I'm yet to run into a determinist who is not at least a part-time Compatibilist, when the shoe fits. We all endorse imposing life-long imprisonment on innocent criminals whose acts of murder/rape are merely products of cause/effect. We endorse this in the form of a court system that will penalize criminals despite their innocence. The penalizing is a means to an end; The ends, for *some* particular Determinists, consist of a preference for deterrence, which is to ultimately serve as their preference for hedonistic net gain. I can agree with these ends, but not when they come into conflict with certain other values I hold. But they believe that only THEY are allowed to trample on the innocent victims of string-pullage in the name of THEIR outlined preferences, & that no one one else is to trespass on the same innocent victims, in the name of any pluralistic value. Example: Bob was born to poverty & bad genetics. He drew nothing but short straws in life, but still busted his ass & his income now supplies him a middle-class lifestyle. Bob is already obligated to surrender a % of his earnings in order to reduce net suffering. The sole recipient of this money is Bob's old classmate Ted. Ted mocked Bob's poverty & genetic inferiority all throughout their childhood. Ted was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, good genetics, drew nothing but long straws, yet managed to end up unemployed & on welfare. One day Ted steals all of Bob's hard earned savings (over $100000). Bob will recover, whereas if Ted hadn't stolen Bob's money, he'd have suffered just enough to generate a net minus. Ted is a determinist who views determinism as a get-out-of-jail-free-card for his theft of Bob's money. Ted also knows that the only witness of his theft, is AntiBullshitMan. Ted knows that ABM is a Determinist & believes that Ted is ultimately just a puppet on a string, who will never steal anything again. To his surprise, ABM reports Ted to the police anyway. What Ted didn't know, is that ABM has a preference for situational justice & wasn't going to let Ted's ass off the hook just because Ted allowed determinism to make him think he's immune to ABM's preference for sweet justice over hedonistic net-gain. In short, Ted can take his knowledge of his string-pullage & cry ABM a river.

  9. Ultimately it is just cause and effect, but I'll gladly sacrifice the poorly-programmed innocent (especially those who are all too aware of their *innocence* & are thus inclined to use it while rationalizing the committing of a wrongdoing for which they won't be repeat offender of, & thus won't need to be used as deterrent fodder) for *my* preferences (like situational justice) just as other Determinists will do it for their respective preferences (like hedonistic net gain). We already know that it's impractical to put emphasis on cause & effect as a way of dismissing accomplishments or excusing irresponsibility. The only difference between us, is some that of us draw the line at our preference for deterrence-only, while others incorporate it further.

    Another favorite example, just because I love watching Determinists justify these things: A man plagued by prison-phobia commits a felony which would have earned him life behind bars. He successfully frames a man who is apathetic to his life & everything around him. The framed man is largely unfazed by his imprisonment, far less than the adult who actually committed the crime would've been. The actual criminal spends the rest of his life committing felony after felony, & frames stoic after stoic, or apathetic man after apathetic man, knowing that the only witnesses were Determinists/net-hedonists who view him as a puppet on strings & are thus willing to excuse the frame job on the grounds of it being a sure-fire net gain.

    I don't take seriously any Moralist who uses determinism as a cop-out of this nature; whitewashing condemnation of any behavior that serves for something other than deterrence, as a last resort to masquerade their net-equation obligationism preferences as being *factually* driven.

    "no real autonomy"

    Good thing I'm not arguing for autonomy. This is an ethics discussion where I evoke a pluralistic outlook on ethics in opposition to a steadfastly hedonistic one.

  10. I was just listening to Gary speaking about this personal autonomy issue. Gary thinks it is always right to infringe on a person's personal autonomy if they are in a negative state and you can put them "in a less negative state".

    So, according to him, it would be right for a mad scientist to storm in his house and immobilize him and give him a bunch of feel-good drugs and attach him to a virtual reality machine. The machine and drugs would make him immune to depression, anxiety and pain. But he couldn't continue his noble AN mission.

    Would Gary accept this? Well, seeing how he only has one purpose in life and that purpose would be demolished because of the scientist, I don't think he would. Did he just bury himself in the most obvious way?

  11. Which begs the question: Is this mad scientist a product of good or bad deterministic programming? Well, it all depends on how successful Gary would have been in arguing for his agenda down the road had he not been fed the feel-good drugs. If Gary's continued presence on the internet went on to reduce sum total suffering, then the scientist was poorly programmed to feed him the feel-good drugs and immobilize him. If not, then the scientist was programmed efficiently. And remember, this is the only possible ethics theory that makes any sense. All other theories are mush and run away from da real troof.

    I just watched Gary's WTF where he once again oversimplified all nuanced consent points by essentially saying that I've now cornered myself into having to believe that no one can ever violate anyone's right to make ignorant decisions. He even brought up parents making decisions for their kids, which is something I've staunchly opposed in both my blog posts and throughout dozens of YT comments over the last week and a half. It's the main driving force behind my AntiNatalism, ffs. And yet he brings it up as though it's something I needed to be told in order to be set straight.

    Like I said at the end of my last video: There is no point.

  12. /watch?v=YX5LOWqXhBU

    Now I'm watching the above Inmendham video where he's saying that I believe in karma. And I'm only 3 minutes into the video.

    Inmendham is a position-distortion machine. Fuck him and anyone who nodded their vacuous heads as they listened to him invent yet another position for me.

  13. Antibullshitman and Tranquil87 have betrayed Inmendham. Suffering matters and all they are doing is confusing the issue.

  14. You believe in Karma and you are a deluded free willer. WTF!


  15. Gary said in tinychat that he wants to find you and beat the shit out of you. But you're the one resorting to emotion. lol

  16. "Antibullshitman and Tranquil87 have betrayed Inmendham"

    Here's hoping that you're trolling with this.

    "Suffering matters and all they are doing is confusing the issue"

    Suffering *can* matter depending on the circumstance. I bike to work on a daily basis, thereby causing myself some suffering when cycling uphill. I could just as easily hop on the train or bus & avoid the hill, but I refuse to do so because what matters *to me* is getting in the full bike ride. The burn I feel during the process doesn't matter to me. But of course, my preferences are irrelevant, for I am to be viewed as nothing but a clog in the machine who is dragging down the precious net-equation for no "real" gain, so I must be persuaded to stop. By any means necessary.

    When you accept a hedonistic outlook on ethics & reject a pluralistic one, the way Inmendham & co. have done, then anyone who simply pursues their own fitness must be saved from themselves, as they are:

    1. Suffering at the hands of physical exertion.
    2. Suffering by avoiding tasty foods.
    3. Suffering by prolonging their lives.


    "he wants to find you and beat the shit out of you"

    He's more than welcome to try. I am half his age and have 35 lbs on him (assuming he's still 160). I look forward to pointlessly dragging down the net equation during our festive bout.

    "But you're the one resorting to emotion. lol"

    If he thinks that his Value talk is something other than a giant appeal to emotion, he's more deluded than your average Randian. Neuroscience has proven that psychopaths, for instance, are cognitively aware of the consequences of their actions when they torture people. Their brain function demonstrates that they don't suffer from a lack of information or an inability to grasp reality. They suffer from a lack of empathy. This sheds light on the naivete of believing that we can entirely separate emotion from our views on right/wrong behavior.

  17. Your answers on determinism were basically just saying we should pretend there is some free will. What a shitty dodge for someone like you who is anti Bull Shit when dealing with the cause and effect chain.

  18. It's not my fault that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that all of us already "dodge" determinism by justifying impositions on poorly programmed victims of cause-and-effect. You too will "basically pretend there's a free will" when rationalizing excuses for routine imprisonment of innocent criminals in the name of something that *you* have a preference for (like deterrence-only for net gain) while believing that no one else can have their own reasons which go beyond deterrence-only (like a pluralistic outlook on ethics that conflates with a hedonistic one).

    While I'm here, I might as well address Inmendham's continued jabs at me. I put Inmendham on a video time-out 3 days ago, but earlier today it was pointed out to me that he's been calling me a "ball-less wonder". So I cracked & clicked on one of his videos from yesterday. What a mistake.

    The only person who showed himself to be a "ball-less wonder" in that exchange is the guy whose counterarguments to the comments I left on his video consisted of the very same arguments I already targeted & thoroughly refuted last year in the first ever blog I wrote up on irreconcilable ethics. Had he been capable of reading beyond a 3rd grade level, he'd have known that.

    It's also the same guy who had to resort to making it seem as though I believe in karma in order to convince his listeners that my situational-justice position is loopy.

    It's also same guy who can't grasp that we can endorse the legitimacy of Tranquil's thought-experiment without believing that the bystander has an Obligation to interfere or to NOT interfere.

    It's also the same guy who said, with a straight face, that the big argument in my blog was that George C. Scott made a better Scrooge than Alastair Sim. He said this, despite knowing full well that I casually threw in that remark as an aside (which is why the remark was surrounded by parentheses, ffs).

    It's also the same guy who thinks that Nihilists are Nihilists because they're evil/small-minded/selfish, and because they (this just in) "worship a DNA molecule" (would love to see a direct quote proving that one).

    It's also the same guy who thinks that having a "pluralistic > hedonistic" outlook on ethics is what makes someone a Nihilist, despite my week-long attempts to explain to him just how 1 dimensional his understanding of Nihilism is.

    So yes, that would be the ball-less wonder.

    Not that being ball-less is anything to be ashamed of, unless Inmendham is just that owned by his male ego and psychology (as he clearly is).

  19. To the person who said I "betrayed inmendham", you should probably look up the definition of the word 'betray'. I have never supported inmendham's ideology. From the very beginning of my YouTube channel I have stated that, while I agreed with the initial sentiment of the AN--the value judgment itself--I believed inmendham to be very naive. He found this to be very patronizing and made sure to let me know and to try to show me in the worst possible light whenever he had to mention me. We have never been on good terms.

    I have tried to urge his followers to try and discover philosophical pessimism, instead of falling for his 'pessimism lite' (as conferencereport so aptly put it). When you have read the true pessimists, you won't fall for a lot of the things inmendham goes for; his infectious rhetoric underwhelms. Inmendham picked up some Schopenhauer because of me (and apparently read the Buddha because of me too, from what I remember him saying) and it was clearly too advanced for him, since he has no philosophical education whatsoever, nor motivation to get one (something I can relate to, knowing that most of what passes as philosophy is valueless to me). Instead of persisting with it though--or at the very least withholding judgment--he gave up, and decided to start slandering S. and the whole of Pessimism - even the writers he has never read (well, tried to read)! Why? Because he's a child, and if he doesn't like you and you like something - he'll be prejudiced against it forever, because that thing is guilty by association. In his last video to me he called the works of Schopenhauer, Zapffe and Cioran "propaganda" and "elitism". The first is the highest level of irony imaginable, and the latter - complete nonsense, unless we're very specific about the kind of elitism. A philosopher of life, or a "private thinker" who resolutely rejects university philosophy isn't possibly an elitist in the common sense of the term. Inmendham has a limited repertoire of words he likes to throw around even when they don't fit. He's obsessed with attaching his little labels to the ghosts he creates, and associating those ghosts with other ghosts.

    It amazes when you notice that he does think he's really, really brilliant. He's so brilliant that he has no need for anyone other than Darwin and Einstein to know everything about everything. At least Cioran knew of his megalomania . . . Inmendham is completely incredulous (and not well read at all, unlike the former). As of today, I regard him as a sad product of the Information Age, where only what is easy is allowed and immediate gratification is virtually all that is sought; depth of thought is unappreciated--nay, to be vehemently opposed--since it is something that just confuses; it blurs what is supposedly crystal clear (if you are simple-minded, that is). I can only shudder imagining the breed of vulgar "thinkers" that he will give birth to (and which should have been aborted), all of which won't have a thought worth thinking: they, like him, will be oversimplifying issues, rejecting nuanced understandings (elitism!!), and misrepresenting others' position to gratify their egos in need. So much for "contributing to humanity's understanding", inmendham's valued mission.

  20. AntiBullshitMan completely bailed on his promise of doing that "long thorough video" explaining why determinism is irrelevant and why selfishness can ever be justified. Still putting that one off are we?

  21. Anonymous from May 18,

    1. What I actually said was that I'd be doing a video countering, in detail, the moral proposition that a net scaled reduction in harm can *always* be said to be the optimal outcome. And this is exactly what I did, except I didn't upload my recording because it was an hour in length and many arguments in it were already made here (and especially in the previous post), with Inmendham and co. failing to comprehend them, much less properly refute them. If recognizing this amounts to "bailing" in your la-la land, let me know and I'll upload the video, no qualms. The recording is well over a month old, but it's still 100% applicable to this.

    2. I already explained why determinism is irrelevant within the scenarios I presented. See arguments in the above posts. If they're flawed, you'll actually have to explain why & we'll take it from there, since I'm done repeating myself.

    3. To universally condemn "selfishness" is to fail at distinguishing between enlightened self-interest and the reptilian stimuli induced kind. It's also impossible to reconcile wholesale denunciations of self-interest with an exalted view of justice, which Inmendham & friends routinely flip-flop on, depending on whether they're making their anti-imposition argument or their "it doesn't matter who suffers" argument.

  22. Can you upload that video anyway? I'm a long time viewer and find your longer videos to be the most enjoyable ones. Length is not a problem and I've seen many of your other subs tell you the same thing over the years. If not, can you at least set it to unlisted and send me the link? I sent you a PM on Youtube a couple of days ago about this, did you see it?

  23. Not relevant to the topic, but are you planning on making more videos or blogs like these?, there's interesting turmoil going on in the AN community.

  24. "are you planning on making more videos or blogs"


    Over the last six months I've been gradually putting together a novel-length thesis that meticulously dissects a number of issues which are loosely related to this post and the two posts before it. At the risk of overselling it, this next writeup will put everything else I've done to shame. Unfortunately, I haven't completed it as of yet, because I only work on it during slow periods at my workplace, since the busy periods at my job leave me too stressed and drained to devote my own free time to any of this stuff in between my shifts, or even on my weekends. So fyi, that's the reason for the hold-up. Once I post it, I'll be sure to stick around and defend it tirelessly if need be.

    I've also not kept up with any videos for months, so feel free to fill me in on this AN turmoil.

    This is wishful thinking on my part, but please tell me that the turmoil has something do with 'Preference Utilitarianism' versus 'Negative Utilitarianism'. The last time I tried to bring this criminally underdiscussed clash to the forefront, I recall hearing crickets.

  25. "It amazes when you notice that he does think he's really, really brilliant. He's so brilliant that he has no need for anyone other than Darwin and Einstein to know everything about everything."

    If you haven't, look up the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's basically what Inmendham suffers from.

  26. Sounds like not much has changed. I've been on a self-imposed Inmendham embargo ever since this last squabble over the 'net product'. Good to know that avoiding Inmendham videos like the plague has led to time well spent. Now if I could only stop wasting time listening to those TinyChat mp3 files...

    "Dunning-Kruger effect"

    Pity too, since Inmendham is actually very skilled in areas like shop. Why he insists on making videos on everything but shop is beyond me.

  27. Not only inmendham but all antinatalists are sick. You don't need to be a psychiatrist to understand that there is something very wrong with someone who advocates the extinction of human species. Instead of taking responsibility for your lives you want to annihilate the species.
    You should get psychological counselling.

  28. "Not only inmendham but all antinatalists are sick"


    Please don't think ANs are sick, random anonymous trolly guy. I'll have to slit my AN-wrists again if you continue thinking this, and I've already slit them like 9 times today. My keyboard can't absorb anymore of my twisted AN-blood.

    "You don't need to be a psychiatrist to understand that there is something very wrong with someone who advocates the extinction of human species"

    I wonder if you need to be a psychiatrist to understand the difference between a counterargument to a given position and a desperate attempt to sweepingly smear the mental health of everyone who thinks that it's ethically problematic for human beings to possess human beings in the form of 'parent/child' schemes.

    Does my critical view of arranged marriages (the 'husband/wife' scheme) also ensnarl my person in relation to your nebulous "something very wrong" indictments? Or are such indictments reserved strictly for the schemes you happen to endorse?

    As for extinction: Obviously you've read none of my writings on it, given your failure to distinguish between extinction as By-Product and extinction as Desired Outcome, which spills over to the differences amid 'Unconditional Extinctionism' and 'Provisional Extinctionism'. In short: If I could give you an immortality pill, I'd do so with genuine glee. The fact that such pills don't exist, and the fact that you will die one day, is beyond our control. Thanatophobia is not a legitimate reason for you to try & immortalize yourself by using other individuals -- who may not appreciate inheriting your genetics, or just having you as their parent -- as fodder for your ideology & your aggressive reluctance to mind your own business.

    "Instead of taking responsibility for your lives you want to annihilate the species"

    Let's see. A steady income is one way of measuring responsibility. Would you like to compare pay stubs/income histories? I would. Apparently this inability of mine to live responsibly has me subsidizing the education/healthcare of minors born to totally responsible breeders who, though perfectly responsible, oddly still need the taxpayer to chip in for said services. Wonder if I'll ever measure up to *that* level of responsibility. Clearly 10+ years of chipping in through taxes suggests that I never will, as breeders (especially those on welfare) have set the responsibility-bar too high.

    "You should get psychological counselling"

    Yes sir! I'll get right on that. Does Dr.Phil still do that show...?

    But seriously, would you be interested in having your psychology undergo a legitimate inspection by an actual specialist, and compare your results with those of ANs? I'd love to arrange this. $1000 says that sick fucks like you who think that suicides (which happen once every 30 seconds, roughly) pose no problems for Natalism, are the ones who will amass a far more deviant score overall (compared not only to my score, but even to the score of people like Inmendham).

  29. You know...Gary is really simple to discard as completely irrelevant, if you look a few very basic things about his essential themes. For one thing, his entire superstructure for "antinatalism" is predicated upon the claim that there is more suffering than there is happiness, in the world. This is virtually impossible to measure, and therefore has no place in any logical argument, since it can never be empirically quantified. Beyond this, there is his claim that "pain and suffering are bad." Pain is a survival / defense mechanism, and suffering is merely prolonged pain or misery. The purpose of such things is to propel the organism experiencing them AWAY from them and TOWARD happiness / contentment / non-pain. Viewed from this perspective, pain and suffering can easily be considered to be positive (good) things. If there were no pain and suffering in life, there would be no incentive toward healing or bettering of one's situation. Finally, his overall regard for life as an "undesired imposition" with "little or no value" owing to the inherent pain and suffering attendant to the majority of existence, and the therefore-implied assignation of value to non-existence, is beyond stupid. In non-existence, there can be no appreciation of any "value" whatsoever, since there is no consciousness, and therefore, no possibility of assigning or apprehending any value. Therefore, the only value one may have access to, is by virtue of existence, the only game in town.

    I have pointed this out to others, before, perhaps in not quite such depth, but really, all Gary has is a bad attitude toward a random existence which seems to have dealt him a crummy hand with which to build his house of cards. Much of his logic is circular, but like the little figures in "Flatland", he can't see beyond his own limited dimensions. He's not even worth arguing with. Just as you cannot hypnotize a definitely opposed will, you can never convince someone who is more interested in being "right" than he or she is in being accurate. It's a Sisyphean task. Honestly, he's not worth anyone's time. ---TheMercilessEye

    1. Bad arguments. Inmendham is off on some stuff (as argued here & elsewhere on this blog) but not for the reasons you mention.

      "his entire superstructure for "antinatalism" is predicated upon the claim that there is more suffering than there is happiness, in the world"

      This is simply wrong, & you won't find a quote of him saying anything remotely like "Natalism becomes justified the moment net happiness supersedes net suffering". Inmendham is a deprivationalist. He believes happiness/pleasure is inauthentic to start with. This is nonsense, but it's significantly different from your characterization of his position. Under his formulation of value (disvalue, but that's an aside for now), precise measurement of qualia isn't necessary because there's no way for inauthentic 'plus' experiences (pleasure/happiness) to ever trump authentically negative ones (pain/sadness).

      For the record, I hold that positive experiences are authentic & am nonetheless quick to lambast any ethic which tolerates package-deals involving non-consensual torture (which occurs daily) for the perpetuation of some extreme positive, be it a positive for one person or for a supermajority. My view of "+/-" incommensurability in such scenarios would be grounded in the uniqueness of the badness emanating from the torture, not some babble about positives being "less negative, but still below zero". If you think this is unreasonable, answer this: Would you sign up to endure the worst horror currently endured by living organisms on earth, & continue to endure it for the rest of your life so that future generations can exist? Or would you simply press the red button if you found yourself in such a hellish trap, as this would be the only means of discontinuing it?

      "This is virtually impossible to measure, and therefore has no place in any logical argument, since it can never be empirically quantified"

      You think ethical propositions must be bound by empiricism? Is this a joke? The entire reason for why ethics as a discipline is filed under 'philosophy' rather than STEM is because it deals with conceptual (non-empirical) matters. Whenever someone complains about measurement in ethics, they're mistaking apples for oranges. Don't be one of those people.

      Or maybe you're a logical positivist who thinks conceptual matters are useless, & only empirical ones can be valid. If so, I can point you to lengthy arguments discrediting logical positivism.

      Though with neuroscience developing at this breakneck pace, I'd not be surprised if we obtained some sort of empirical grip on qualia within our lifetimes. At present, our inability to do so is a pointedly epistemic hurdle, not a logical one.

      Re: Pain as incentive. This is the worst, most question-begging argument (one Inmendham himself addresses rather well). For instance, as toddlers we learn not to touch hot stoves. Done deal. When such learning is done, we don't become impervious to basic negatives. What great piece of knowledge do dying cancer patients acquire by suffering severely in their last weeks/months? Seriously, awful rationalization.

      "the only value one may have access to, is by virtue of existence, the only game in town"

      Tell it to the Positive Utilitarians or deontologists. It packs no punch here, as ANs prioritize the avoidance of disvalue over the pursuit of value. Absence of sentience is perfectly compatible with the avoidance of disvalue. In fact, it's the only way to guarantee it tout court.

      "Much of his logic is circular"

      True, but again, seems like you've not identified the actual circular bits. You come across as someone who believes that A's euphoria can morally (or commensurably) justify B's non-consensual torture. There's nothing airtight about this view, & disagreeing with it doesn't entail circularity.

  30. Pardone: "...if you look AT a few very basic things about his essential themes." my bad. ---TME

  31. Karma is Cause and effect lmao, if you believe only in cause and effect you believe in Karma, if you cant see they are the same thing, you dont understand karma

  32. Inmendham is an idiot, there is no question about that. I cannot say if you are right or wrong because I did not read your blogpost. My main agenda is to oppose inmendham (Gary Mosher) anywhere I can and anyhow I can.
    Then man is out there operating without any ethics or morals, like General Kurtz. He needs to be stopped. I am not saying to "neutralize" inmendham, but he needs to be put to trial for denying the Holocaust and advancing genocide.