LogFAQs > #956386163

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.
Truth_Decay 07/23/21 12:59:39 PM #198:	Reigning_King posted... The part of my post (#188) you quote in post #189 is referring to the first paragraph in your post #186, this... [and so forth with some condescending remarks about how conversations work] Ah, but this is a complex issue, and my entire point is meant to be taken as a whole, not broken down into pieces and argued word-for-word, or paragraph to paragraph. I've seen you dismiss other posters rebuttals as "irrelevant", and your response to my post is very telling. You're unable to see the big picture. You're so laser-focused on this one thought: eliminating all human suffering, that you're wholly incapable of seeing anything else. Your deeming other responses as irrelevant because they don't align with your very narrow viewpoint is indicative of not only your ignorance, but your willful ignorance. And your condescension and derision speaks to an unflappable arrogance. I see no point in continuing a conversation with someone so pigheaded as they won't even entertain an opposing viewpoint, such as I have: Reigning_King posted... You're literally admitting that I'm correct to say suffering is intrinsically tied to human life, it is impossible to ever achieve a life without any suffering, yes. ^ this is called ceding a point. I can agree with a certain part of your argument without agreeing to the whole. Yes, I agree there is no way, currently or in the foreseeable future, to end human suffering. No, I do not believe antinatalism is the solution to ending human suffering, as ending humanity is not an intelligent, empathetic solution. It's a callous, psychotic solution. Your whole argument rests on the notion that you're some champion for those who don't even exist. It's a ludicrous argument, and frankly not one worth having. As I've already stated, though I'll repost as you have a tendency to gloss over and dismiss everything: Truth_Decay posted... We should strive to improve upon each generation. Can we ever achieve a life without any suffering? Absolutely not. But many, and I'd hedge a bet that it's a vast majority, would choose to push forward and make incremental progress, rather than give in and wait for death. Speculation is worth as much as one can reason against it. That said, I'm fully comfortable saying that a majority of people, if given the choice, would choose a life with some suffering over no life at all, and that would mean that your "solution" of stripping away their chance at that life is no solution at all. It's not sensible, or practical. With that in mind, antinatalism cannot be "correct", regardless of how you spin it. Would I trade my life for one with more suffering? No. Why would I? Unless I was looking to put myself into a scenario where I am attempting to help those less fortunate than myself by immersing myself in their world to offer direct assistance (example: Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps, etc. Practical solutions to ending human suffering, mind you.) then there's very little incentive to opt for more suffering. Those who do choose that life are truly the noblest among us. Not those who would see complete destruction to make their point. Those who choose to glom onto these silly fantasy "solutions" only serve as a distraction at best, and an obstacle at worst, to a true solution to ending suffering. --- Seek the truth / Free your mind Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind <cite>Truth_Decay posted [p:956386163] in I'm an ant... [t:79573893]...</cite> <quote>Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>The part of my post (#188) you quote in post #189 is referring to the first paragraph in your post #186, this... [and so forth with some condescending remarks about how conversations work]</quote> Ah, but this is a complex issue, and my entire point is meant to be taken as a whole, not broken down into pieces and argued word-for-word, or paragraph to paragraph. I've seen you dismiss other posters rebuttals as "irrelevant", and your response to my post is very telling. You're unable to see the big picture. You're so laser-focused on this one thought: eliminating all human suffering, that you're wholly incapable of seeing anything else. Your deeming other responses as irrelevant because they don't align with your very narrow viewpoint is indicative of not only your ignorance, but your willful ignorance. And your condescension and derision speaks to an unflappable arrogance. I see no point in continuing a conversation with someone so pigheaded as they won't even entertain an opposing viewpoint, such as I have: Reigning_King posted... </cite> <quote>You're literally admitting that I'm correct to say suffering is intrinsically tied to human life, it is impossible to ever achieve a life without any suffering, yes.</quote> ^ this is called ceding a point. I can agree with a certain part of your argument without agreeing to the whole. Yes, I agree there is no way, currently or in the foreseeable future, to end human suffering. No, I do not believe antinatalism is the solution to ending human suffering, as ending humanity is not an intelligent, empathetic solution. It's a callous, psychotic solution. Your whole argument rests on the notion that you're some champion for those who don't even exist. It's a ludicrous argument, and frankly not one worth having. As I've already stated, though I'll repost as you have a tendency to gloss over and dismiss everything: Truth_Decay posted... </cite> <quote>We should strive to improve upon each generation. Can we ever achieve a life without any suffering? Absolutely not. But many, and I'd hedge a bet that it's a vast majority, would choose to push forward and make incremental progress, rather than give in and wait for death.</quote> Speculation is worth as much as one can reason against it. That said, I'm fully comfortable saying that a majority of people, if given the choice, would choose a life with some suffering over no life at all, and that would mean that your "solution" of stripping away their chance at that life is no solution at all. It's not sensible, or practical. With that in mind, antinatalism cannot be "correct", regardless of how you spin it. Would I trade my life for one with more suffering? No. Why would I? Unless I was looking to put myself into a scenario where I am attempting to help those less fortunate than myself by immersing myself in their world to offer direct assistance (example: Doctors Without Borders, Peace Corps, etc. Practical solutions to ending human suffering, mind you.) then there's very little incentive to opt for more suffering. Those who do choose that life are truly the noblest among us. Not those who would see complete destruction to make their point. Those who choose to glom onto these silly fantasy "solutions" only serve as a distraction at best, and an obstacle at worst, to a true solution to ending suffering. --- Seek the truth / Free your mind Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1