LogFAQs > #956345354

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, DB3, DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, Database 8 ( 02.18.2021-09-28-2021 ), DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	I'm an anti-natalist.
kind9 07/22/21 9:03:25 AM #174:	Reigning_King posted... As I said it isn't relevant, even less so if you agree anti-natalism is one. I have no clue why you even brought up the subject in the first place while I have entire parts of my argument that have been ignored like post #126 I don't remember why I brought it up. I think it was because you seemed to imply that because it's philosophy it can't reasonably be refuted. There are peer reviewed papers refuting this philosophy. Reigning_King posted... For the third time, if humans were to die out there is basically zero chance of anything replacing us. Even if the chance did exist as I've said sapient aliens who suffer similar to humans might very well exist too but my philosophy is human focused as a matter of practicality. It isn't worth the trouble of searching the cosmos for these hypothetical aliens just like it isn't worth the trouble of worrying about hypothetical sapient species that could replace humanity. To answer my own question, 5-6 million years. Kind of weird to say "my philosophy" when you didn't come up with it. The dude who came up with it was mentioned earlier in the topic by the other antinatalist. Reigning_King posted... What you're thinking of is called Efilism No what I'm thinking of is definitely an aspect of antinatalism. The lunatic who came up with this "efilism"(a word I had never heard until this moment) calls it "advanced antinatalism" and "secular atheism". Pure garbage philosophy. Here's the youtube "philosopher" who came up with it(he argues that you should drown cats to end their suffering): https://youtu.be/fRS2t6saFBc Reigning_King posted... and guess what, my opinion is that such a child should have never been born in the first place. This is the most basic part of anti-natalism, it is about preventing harm before it can ever occur, the focus isn't about people who already exist. I mean, this is the obvious answer I expected from you, which is why I posed other questions there. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day this philosophy is based on highly subjective concepts that I doubt you could answer for. I'm sure Mr. Benatar has answers. He has injected his philosophy with answers to every objection. He even calls into question our ability to assess our own happiness. So if you thought you were happy think again, you should never have been born. --- https://imgur.com/NkZUeFd <cite>kind9 posted [p:956345354] in I'm an ant... [t:79573893]...</cite> <quote>Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>As I said it isn't relevant, even less so if you agree anti-natalism is one. I have no clue why you even brought up the subject in the first place while I have entire parts of my argument that have been ignored like post #126</quote>I don't remember why I brought it up. I think it was because you seemed to imply that because it's philosophy it can't reasonably be refuted. There are peer reviewed papers refuting this philosophy. Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>For the third time, if humans were to die out there is basically zero chance of anything replacing us. Even if the chance did exist as I've said sapient aliens who suffer similar to humans might very well exist too but my philosophy is human focused as a matter of practicality. It isn't worth the trouble of searching the cosmos for these hypothetical aliens just like it isn't worth the trouble of worrying about hypothetical sapient species that could replace humanity.</quote>To answer my own question, 5-6 million years. Kind of weird to say "my philosophy" when you didn't come up with it. The dude who came up with it was mentioned earlier in the topic by the other antinatalist. Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>What you're thinking of is called Efilism</quote>No what I'm thinking of is definitely an aspect of antinatalism. The lunatic who came up with this "efilism"(a word I had never heard until this moment) calls it "advanced antinatalism" and "secular atheism". Pure garbage philosophy. Here's the youtube "philosopher" who came up with it(he argues that you should drown cats to end their suffering): https://youtu.be/fRS2t6saFBc Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>and guess what, my opinion is that such a child should have never been born in the first place. This is the most basic part of anti-natalism, it is about preventing harm before it can ever occur, the focus isn't about people who already exist.</quote>I mean, this is the obvious answer I expected from you, which is why I posed other questions there. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day this philosophy is based on highly subjective concepts that I doubt you could answer for. I'm sure Mr. Benatar has answers. He has injected his philosophy with answers to every objection. He even calls into question our ability to assess our own happiness. So if you thought you were happy think again, you should never have been born. --- https://imgur.com/NkZUeFd</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1