Tulpa.info - guide-discussion

It'd be preferable if they are linked on the forum itself, though putting them in the docs couldn't hurt given the docs are never lost

So I'm about to drop a massive deuce in here. Tulpas are not a lifelong commitment. Such rhetoric coming from the one in here with at least 7 dissipated headmates and more dissipations is exceedingly hypocritical and downright something said in denial. I've known person after person who have gotten rid of headmates, whether that be Jane's system or others. Tulpas aren't children either, they grow to be as mentally capable as their hosts quickly. They don't take resources like your money. Hell, a dog is a bigger life commitment than a tulpa. People don't even give videos on how to purchase and raise a dog, people just do it. Tulpas get whole guides written on them and they don't even shit on your floor (hopefully). You can argue what's moral all day long, but the point is that tulpas are not a lifelong commitment. They are quickly and easily dropped without a person to notice except those in the community, maybe. Trying to say tulpas are a lifelong commitment is staying in denial to what is an easily dropped hobby. We have yet to merge or dissipate any of our members to date, but we're not going to laud that as some stupid moral high ground when there's no reason to. That's all people have used it for, as a way to diminish others for not fully committing to this experience.

10/10, decided to dissipate my tulpas in the spot

on*

You make some good points but yours is rhetoric too. The prevailing school of thought seems to be that it is supposed to be a life-long commitment.

That's nice. I gave reasons for my belief

You didn't really

6:17 AM

Your entire third paragraph is generalizations

a dog is a bigger life commitment than a tulpa This is a reason

No, that's a generalization. A relatively easy and highly-plausible counter argument to make would be that I spend more money on my tulpas because the satisfaction of my tulpas is more important than that of my dog.

6:20 AM

What you're saying is certainly true sometimes, and perhaps true the majority of the time, but it is not fundamentally true.

That's anecdotal. Dog food costs something. Getting a dog costs alot. Getting shots and vaccines costs a lot. Getting art for your tulpas is like buying your dog a scarf. It's not necessary, just kinda cute

6:20 AM

Therefore, tulpas are less of a commitment. Money spent is on wants, not necessities

Okay, but

6:21 AM

You're making inferences from specific cases of people owning dogs and people having tulpas

6:22 AM

If even one tulpa is less of a life commitment than a dog might otherwise be, your "reasons" are wrong. But I'm asserting it's very plausible that many cases of this exist, not only the one.

Very reputable

NBC? Usually

.-.

6:26 AM

You're assuming a great monetary cost to be equivalent to a bigger commitment, but isn't the case

What commitment is inherent to a tulpa?

Even if it was, my tulpa could switch with me and get starbucks every day to cost me well over $30,000 for the course of their life

So, still less than a dog? And still overlapping with your own food intake?

Addtionally, Starbucks is a want, not a need

6:28 AM

and is not inherent to owning a tulpa

You're missing the point.

If anyone is missing the point, it is you. You are blatantly avoiding the core issue: Nothing inherent to a tulpa is a lifelong commitment

I don't disagree with what you're saying, I disagree with how you're trying to demonstrate it.

Ah, so tulpas are not a lifelong commitment and you agree then?

From the horses mouth, this demonstrates the error in your thinking. I agree with you that tulpas are not necessarily a lifelong commitment, but they certainly can be a lifelong commitment.

So can showering daily. But that's actually more difficult to drop at a hat because there's a social consequence to not showering

You aren't very good at this....

Tulpas can or can't be a lifelong commitment. That statement implies they are not a lifelong commitment. Thus, we should cease the rhetoric because it is blatant lying. I'd say I'm doing pretty well at not attacking the other person while presenting my points at the very least

6:34 AM

Nice ad hominem, btw

You can't get blood from a turnip MarkdownContext { Depth = 1 }

Indeed, it seems I can't even get a consistent opinion from you.

6:39 AM

Only backpedaling

It doesn't matter if the proposition of a tulpa being a lifelong commitment or not is mutually exclusive. The fact that the events are mutually exclusive does not imply tulpas are not a lifelong commitment.

6:43 AM

The proposition is not even collectively exhaustive, so you cannot assume one of the outcomes is certain as there are more than two.

6:44 AM

(I'm sure you'll argue that making then dissipating then remaking is still the case of "not lifelong" and I'll even grant that one)

Alright. Then give me an outcome that is neither a lifelong or temporary commitment.

The case I described in parenthesis, or the case of the tulpa becoming one entity with the host, or the case of the host not being able to dissipate the tulpa, or any number of other possibilities.

You cease having a tulpa on becoming a singlet. Taking care of them and "committing" to them becomes the same action as committing to one's own livelihood. It functionally is as if there never was a tulpa, and therefore is not something unique to having a tulpa. Therefore, a temporary commitment. Being unable to dissipate a tulpa still allows merging. Read the previous paragraph. In the case of a tulpa taking dominance over a host, the tulpa could dissipate the host and functionally become a singlet. In the way there are infinite hypotheticals to create a permanent commitment, there are infinitely many ways to break it.

(We can move to DM if you want)

I'm making this public for the strict purpose of making people actually consider what is moral. I'm not going to make it private

Also, this is still guide discussion, this started because of Kopase's guide and is a crux in Felight's arguments about the length of Kopase's guide.

Yeah in any event we shouldn't continue here

Why not? This is, as previously stated, deeply relevant to the discussion of the GAT's current topic guide.

Are you all three from one system or something?

No.

6:55 AM

We're all GAT members though.

That doesn't carry much weight with me, the GAT is the longest running joke around here

6:56 AM

Even I was on it :^)

All it means is we have a vested interest in seriously discussing the quality of this guide and tulpamancy as a whole.

I don't - the opposite if anything.

6:57 AM

I think we should continue elsewhere.

Right, you seem to have lost interest as soon as your personal attacks were called out.

Personal attacks?

6:58 AM

Saying "You aren't very good at this" isn't a personal attack

6:58 AM

If you think it is we just disagree on the matter, but you can press it if you want.

It is at the very least hostile and devoid of any meaningful critique of the other party's argument.

Actually that's a textbook ad hominem: Commenting on someone's lack of experience or intellect to try and diminish their speech

Well I certainly didn't mean it that way!

7:00 AM

I don't like to be accused of attacking people, but I'm willing to drop the matter if you are.

Really now. Asmask, if I told you that you were really bad at push-ups while presenting no knowledge or metric to define "bad" would you take it as anything other than an insult? Or perhaps you'd rather dismiss them as stupid?

The latter, for sure. Even if I'm somehow horribly wrong, I already know I'm really probably not going to change my mind about push-ups at their word.

That's how I feel after you say I'm bad at understanding the point, when you've bring none to bear

7:05 AM

brought*

I'm sorry you look at it that way. I meant that more in the context of forming your argument. As I said at the outset I agree that a tulpa is not necessarily a lifelong commitment, but I do not think your use of generalizations about tulpas and dog-owners demonstrated it very well.

Regardless of whether or not it was a perfect demonstration, it atleast illustrates that things outside of your mind have much greater commitment tied to them and thus inherently more responsibility than whether or not you decide to mentally speak to your waifu or not for the next 10 years

When you make blanket statements like that riddled with buzzwords, it's hard for me to dissect. But certainly you didn't illustrate that at all.

<Phoenix> If we're to create a rhetoric for not dissipating tulpas, it should be for actual reasons people don't dissipate their tulpas. I don't dissipate my tulpas because I love them and they love me and by getting rid of them I would sabotage my own happiness. Let THAT be our message, not "lifelong commitment" (edited)

I don't know what you're on about now, but it was a good discussion.

7:17 AM

So what I gather from this is that you don't think having a child should be regarded as a lifelong commitment?

7:17 AM

@Deleted User

Well, I never make generalizations. Ba dum tiss.

7:18 AM

If I had a child, I would regard it as a lifelong commitment. But this is not the case for every child.

The statement "I never make generalizations" is itself a generalization about your own behavior.

So what I'm hearing is that not raising a child is perfectly fine underneath some circumstances? Care to explain where I should draw the line between the dumpster and my arms?

Thus follows the rimshot. But you're trying to force me to make a generalization with that question.

No. I'm asking you to explain contradictory statements you have made.

Okay Spock, it's called a joke.

7:21 AM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObpcGNCU944

Mikołaj Wypych

Ba dum tss

7:21 AM

That's why this sound followed

So were you joking when you said a tulpa is like a kid? Or when you said that tulpas aren't commitments?

7:21 AM

You're still ignoring my question.

Neither of those. I was joking about never making generalizations.

You're still ignoring the questions

Okay, I'll go one at a time: "So what I'm hearing is that not raising a child is perfectly fine underneath some circumstances?" -- I don't think it's "perfectly fine," but it certainly happens regardless of what I think. "Care to explain where I should draw the line between the dumpster and my arms?" -- That's for you to decide and I don't care what you pick.

So it's not fine to not raise a child, and a tulpa is like a child, therefore neither tulpas nor children are lifelong commitments? (edited)

Your counterpart astutely pointed out earlier that tulpas and children aren't comparable in this respect, so I don't know what you're on about.

7:29 AM

If you care how I feel about things, you should ask that. But trying to make a point at my expense seems pretty silly to me.

7:30 AM

I'm surprised someone hasn't said something to the effect of "Nobody can make a tulpa as soon as they are born, so a tulpa can never be a lifelong commitment and you were wrong from the start!"

7:32 AM

If you want to debate further, we can do so in DM.

Look, you said that there was no need for a "5 minute tulpa guide" because tulpas are like children. If you no longer feel that such a comparison is appropriate, then what's the problem with making a 5 minute tulpa guide?

7:35 AM

@Deleted User This is a discussion about the merits of a guide, in the appropriate channel. This is not and never was a debate merely between you and I either.

7:35 AM