LogFAQs > #956396716

Far-Queue posted...

We're inflexible?! lmao

You love the smell of your own BS so much that you fail to realize that these non-existent people your whole garbage argument hinges on would prefer to live with some suffering rather than not live at all, and that denial of their existence is far more selfish than someone looking to improve their lives.

If you think unborn people, people who don't exist in any form, people who even if they existed would be otherworldly souls of some kind (who would have to be knowledgeable about life on Earth) have things like preferences then you need to seek psychiatric help.

I mean how does one communicate with something that doesn't exist? How do you know what they would or would not prefer? How do you know that a singular, specific one of these... souls or whatever you think they are, would want to be born? If even .01% of these souls (I can't believe I'm entertaining this absurdity) didn't want to be born than a mother would still be gambling with the life of her child if she happened to give birth to that one.

Truth_Decay posted...

Ignoring your points? Can't admit I'm wrong? Awful lot of projecting in your post.

I'll keep it simple for you, since you seem unable to stay focused.

Your argument falls apart because it isn't practical, and it doesn't solve anything. Getting rid of the humanity isn't a solution. It's a cop-out. If you're not smart enough to come up with real solutions, or lack the strength and resolve to face suffering in the interim, then I guess you resort to feeble-minded "solutions" like anti-natalism.

There's no quick fix to human suffering. I don't agree in genocide or catastrophic natural disasters any more than anti-natalism because none of those solves anything. They ignore the issues. There's no magic salve. You have to tackle issues on an individual basis. Homelessness, hunger, poverty, disease, war and conflict, etc etc.

Antinatalism isn't practical. It's not a solution. It's a cowardly and simple-minded answer to the complex problems we face as a species.

Well yes you're literally ignoring that I objectively proved you wrong twice in a row over your claim that I missed some part of your argument, among many other things. I'm not surprised at this point though, so be it if you have to ignore 80% of my posts to focus on the 20% you think is the weakest in order to try and keep up with me.

I mentioned anti-natalism isn't practical back in post #24, as far as how much impact it has but on a theoretical level it is the best way to end human suffering and I stand by that since no one else itt has come up with a single other way to do that compared to the several I have which I compared to come to my conclusion. Your idea of tackling individual problems might very well help reduce suffering but it will never eliminate it. We've been over this several times, just admit you think keeping humanity going is more important than ending suffering, you're more or less saying that already. We have two different goals, we aren't arguing how best to go about doing the same thing. To the problem I have, that suffering exist, anti-natalism is absolutely the correct solution. To the problem you have, that suffering is too great (or however you would phrase it) anti-natalism isn't the solution because you want to have your cake and eat it too by leaving people alive to enjoy the reduced suffering levels.

It's a childish fantasy that is ultimately even more impractical than anti-natalism. Suffering will never end, it will only change and since you brought up adaptability in the past I shouldn't have to tell you that people will simply adapt to these better conditions and not see them as anything special. Children born after the last illness is eliminated won't live their lives in perpetually joy because of it, that will just be the normal state of the world to them and they will focus on the problems of their own era. Eliminate homelessness worldwide and people will just become dissatisfied because some have nicer homes than others. Eliminate hunger and people will complain about the food they get. Eliminate war and groups in conflict will just attack each other indirectly. Eliminate disease (I have to assume this somehow includes death as well) and you get overpopulation and degenerative genes being passed along.

You call the idea of anti-natalism a cop-out or the equivalent of running away. Well I ask you why one should be ashamed of running away from an endless, difficult and entirely pointless battle where the soldiers sent to fight never asked to be involved in the first place.