Poll of the Day > I'm an anti-natalist.

Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6
PunishedOni
07/21/21 9:07:28 PM
#151:


Mead posted...
Every part of this entire topic is bad

i thought my posts were pretty funny

---
hi im chelsea ^__^
'thou shalt not suffer a dentist to live' - chelsea
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/21/21 9:12:35 PM
#152:


Zedonra posted...
I don't know if the anti natalist perspective means much versus just hoping for the mass and quick extinction of all humankind (and all life). If you're being an absolute realist humanist who hates human suffering then life is inherently evil because it brings about suffering inherently and the world is a really unfair, cruel, and unjust place (not to mention all the horrific things we lucky 1st worlders don't see on a daily basis and ignore the fact that they exist). You can't really stop people from procreating even if you adopt this perspective, so you have to hope for a global extinction event (or bring it about yourself with global thermonuclear war, but you'd have to be one hell of a powerful human with luck on their side too to bring that extinction about yourself. And even then global thermonuclear war could leave survivors. Maybe in the future when we understand science to the point where we could annihilate the earth in a quick fell swoop). The quickest death that could be imparted to all life on this planet is probably spaghettification by a wandering black hole or gamma ray burst. Not sure how quick exactly and how much pain would be caused by either extinction event in the moments before death.
I wouldn't be opposed to a sudden mass extinction mostly because as you say my suggestions for a peaceful man made one are extremely unlikely to pass. Realistically we're looking at a long and drawn out, unplanned one with unnecessary suffering, but even that is better than no extinction at all. I talk about anti-natalism since as impractical as it is, it's still something that isn't just a hope or a dream, something that places the power to choose in the hands of the individual.

ReturnOfFa posted...
PS the animal kingdom also creates suffering, even though they are of nature. Should they be controlled? Will they create magical peace Earth after humans peacefully die off? LOL NO MOTHERFUCKER!!!
Nonhuman animals are effectively biological automata simply following the program that is DNA that tells them to replicate endlessly for no reason. They aren't nearly as relevant as humanity since some of us are actually capable of going against our programming and seeing it for the pointless sham that it is. Humans are uniquely able to reach the conclusions I've come to not just because of our intelligence but also something that no wild animals has, free time. Time to ponder is what gives birth to philosophy. Many humans are living lives akin to animals where all they do is think about how to get by, how to put food on the table one more day, they have no time for higher thoughts than that and so they dismiss those who do, that is happening itt but imagine if I went to some 3rd world country and tried this there, I would be ridiculed far more if not seen as insane.

This time to think is both a blessing and a curse, it is the reason suicide and rates of depression are so much higher in the 1st world than the 3rd world, but I'm glad I had it and was able to utilize it. The point I'm trying to get to is that as the world becomes more and more advanced (automation, ubi, etc) and more and more of humanity is given this time you will see more and more people come to the same conclusion I have. Humans are special, we need to use that speciality to break the chains that have enslaved us, the other animals aren't as lucky so they will just have to live out their days under their yoke.
... Copied to Clipboard!
KodyKeir
07/21/21 9:12:52 PM
#153:


Mead posted...
Every part of this entire topic is bad

Reigning_King posted...


Mad_Max posted...
but I have never sunk so low that I'd want all of humanity to die off. I enjoy life,


well there is your problem, your optimistic outlook

---
Why didn't you DODGE‽‽‽
... Copied to Clipboard!
Justin2Krelian
07/21/21 9:18:27 PM
#154:


The Shakers would approve

---
-J2K
"And who are you? The proud Lord Zedd!"
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/21/21 9:30:56 PM
#155:


KodyKeir posted...
well there is your problem, your optimistic outlook
Yep, it's pretty regrettable how much suffering such a "happy" disposition brings to the world without people even knowing it. Optimism is the cause of untold amounts of harm. My boy Schopenhaur has plenty of quotes pointing this out but two of my favorites are these from The World as Will and Representation.

"optimism, where it is not just the thoughtless talk of someone with only words in his flat head, strikes me as not only absurd, but even a truly wicked way of thinking, a bitter mockery of the unspeakable sufferings of humanity."

"if we were to conduct the confirmed optimist through the hospitals, infirmaries, and surgical operating-rooms, through the prisons, torture-chambers, and slave-kennels, over battle-fields and places of execution; if we were to open to him all the dark abodes of misery, where it hides itself from the glance of cold curiosity, and, finally, allow him to glance into the starving dungeon of Ugolino, he, too, would understand at last the nature of this best of possible worlds"
... Copied to Clipboard!
adjl
07/21/21 9:49:03 PM
#156:


Reigning_King posted...
Someone can be an anti-natalist and love life, there is no conflict of interest there.

Sure there is. If you enjoy your life, you're personally invalidating the belief that life is something harmful that should not be inflicted upon people by giving birth to them. You are yourself deciding that living is worthwhile because it has been a net positive experience.

Reigning_King posted...
There is a very simple formula that shows I am correct, at least from the moral perspective.

Provided you apply a pretty useless definition of "harm," that's a plausible argument. But the thing about useless definitions is that they're useless, so that doesn't really amount to much. Your first premise is also innately flawed: It's perfectly ethical to harm somebody without their consent, provided they are incapable of deciding for themselves and that harm is necessary to attain a benefit that clearly outweighs it. The "harm" that every human can reasonably be expected to experience is not so bad as to outweigh the positive experiences that one will generally have if one exists, so the whole "technically everyone faces some quantity of suffering" thing does nothing to invalidate the net positive effect of being born.

Now, that's not to say there aren't situations where it's likely that the child will suffer such that their life is a net negative experience. In those cases, reproducing is indeed irresponsible and inconsiderate. Attempting to generalize those circumstances to the population as a whole, however, is just plain silly.

---
This is my signature. It exists to keep people from skipping the last line of my posts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/21/21 10:51:11 PM
#157:


adjl posted...
Sure there is. If you enjoy your life, you're personally invalidating the belief that life is something harmful that should not be inflicted upon people by giving birth to them. You are yourself deciding that living is worthwhile because it has been a net positive experience.

Provided you apply a pretty useless definition of "harm," that's a plausible argument. But the thing about useless definitions is that they're useless, so that doesn't really amount to much. Your first premise is also innately flawed: It's perfectly ethical to harm somebody without their consent, provided they are incapable of deciding for themselves and that harm is necessary to attain a benefit that clearly outweighs it. The "harm" that every human can reasonably be expected to experience is not so bad as to outweigh the positive experiences that one will generally have if one exists, so the whole "technically everyone faces some quantity of suffering" thing does nothing to invalidate the net positive effect of being born.

Now, that's not to say there aren't situations where it's likely that the child will suffer such that their life is a net negative experience. In those cases, reproducing is indeed irresponsible and inconsiderate. Attempting to generalize those circumstances to the population as a whole, however, is just plain silly.

There is a difference between thinking a life is worth living and thinking a life is worth starting. I'm sure you've gone to the movies or a restaurant where the film or meal wasn't perfect, maybe it wasn't even that great, but how often do you abruptly stand up in the middle of the film/meal and just walk out? I mean you're already there, it would have to be pretty terrible to just leave wouldn't it? Now on the other hand say you knew before ever leaving the house that you probably wouldn't think it was the best, you would naturally look for another film/restuarant to go to right? That's the difference between starting something and continuing it except it's not the best analogy since in that case you're making a choice for yourself and in the case of procreation you're playing with the life of another person, forcing them into a situation that you know for a fact will involve the ordinary types of human suffering I've covered as well as God knows what else. A given person might enjoy their own life and be thankful they were born despite the hardships they've suffered but that doesn't mean they should have free reign to make that same choice for someone else who might not have their positive personality or might simply suffer vastly more than they have.

We clearly disagree on the usage of the word harm so I'll move on to the bolded part. I would actually agree with you here, for example if I was in a house fire and had fallen unconscious and someone needed to push me out of a first story window to save me I would take the bruises and minor cuts in exchange for my life. However, change that first story window to a third story one where I might just die anyways or end up handicapped if I hit the ground wrong and things start to change. You see I agree with your statement but it isn't relevant to our discussion for the simple fact that the benefit you speak of isn't guaranteed, it's a gamble. You can not guarantee with any certainty the type of life a child will have. Harming someone, causing them suffering with certainty without their consent because you think it might be in their best interests is unethical unless you can prove the chance of that benefit is 100%. Say I steal $10,000 from you and invest it in a project that has a 99% chance of doubling your money, all of which I plan on giving back to you but I'm unlucky and lose it all, would you really say I haven't done something unethical? Would you just shrug and say it's fine because my heart was in the right place? This is also a somewhat poor analogy since you are a flesh and blood human who needs money to survive (or in the other example I'm a human who wishes not to burn in a fire), but in the case of an unborn child they have no interests. A child who doesn't exist can not care one way or the other that they don't exist and are missing out on the great benefit you arrogantly claim to exist for the average person. By bringing them into reality they are being harmed for something they can not care about, they is no benefit, not even for the potential child of the world's best couple. This is all ignoring my other points about how happiness can't even exist without suffering and all that, no matter how you look at it, it simply isn't ethical.

And here you admit it's a gamble. Tell me, how is one supposed to determine which births are "inconsiderate" before the child is born? Consult a fortune teller? No, it's always a gamble, the child of a homeless woman can live a "blessed" life and the child of a wealthy couple can be full of misery and terror. Reusing an analogy from earlier it's playing Russian roulette with someone else and if they're shot the culprits (the parents) can just shrug and say "oh well" and get away with it, how on earth is that fair or just? People can't control luck but they can control if they deliberately endanger people which is what having a child is (once again ignoring what I've said about the intrinsically harms of living).

Your point here is actually pretty close to a eugenics stance as well. Like should the poor who can't properly care for their children not be allowed to breed? What about those with hereditary disabilities or maybe low IQ? Who are you to say which people is certain situations should and shouldn't have children?
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
07/21/21 11:03:22 PM
#158:


Reigning_King posted...
adjl posted...
Your point here is actually pretty close to a eugenics stance as well. Like should the poor who can't properly care for their children not be allowed to breed? What about those with hereditary disabilities or maybe low IQ? Who are you to say which people is certain situations should and shouldn't have children?
Stop trying to paint nonsensical portraits of other people using negative implications that are also involved in your bizarre point of view. Another total contradiction.

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/21/21 11:13:52 PM
#159:


Adjl, your problem is that you are starting from the assumption that because life has always existed in a certain way that must be the right way and any contradictions to that way must be the wrong way. Anti-natalism is obviously a fringe philosophy but because of that I understand both sides, having been raised in and indoctrinated by a pro-natal society as all of the rest of you. Once again I applaud you for your professional conduct but I can't help but feel the most productive type of debate would have to be between two people who understand both sides. May I suggest to you (and anyone else) the premiere anti-natalist work, Better Never to have Been by David Benatar.

Beyond expanding your mind he is far more articulate than I and gets the main points across better than I can. I'm not withdrawing from this debate by any mean but I wanted to post this as a thank you of sorts.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Metalsonic66
07/21/21 11:22:34 PM
#160:


https://youtu.be/xuCn8ux2gbs

---
PSN/Steam ID: Metalsonic_69
Big bombs go kabang.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/21/21 11:30:03 PM
#161:


ReturnOfFa posted...
Stop trying to paint nonsensical portraits of other people using negative implications that are also involved in your bizarre point of view. Another total contradiction.
That kind of thinking is pretty common though, it's just the degree that matters for most. For example even though you're pro-natal would you think it was right for a couple who knew they had the recessive genes that produce Tay-Sachs disease to reproduce? If you don't know what that is here's the wikipedia article: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay%E2%80%93Sachs_disease
The long and short of it though is that if their child inherited the disease they would be guaranteed to die an excruciating death before they turned 5 years old. If a couple knew this could be the fate of any children they had, would you think it irresponsible of them to take that gamble? I think most people would say it wouldn't be fair for the potential child.

That's on the extreme end but there's a whole spectrum, should someone with schizophrenia have children and possibly pass it onto them? What about this?
https://youtu.be/7oqX64KW7og
As you go up the spectrum there are plenty of people who believe that people too poor to care for their children shouldn't have them, and some extend that to certain ethnic groups and so on but even before that point it's still a type of judgemental discrimination.
"My life is so nice, I'm glad I was born, but how on earth can [insert group X here] stand to bring more of their kind into existence?"

I don't discriminate, I don't think anyone should have kids period.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Veedrock-
07/21/21 11:33:29 PM
#162:


Modern society: My body my choice!
TC: Unless you're poor.

---
My friends call me Vee.
I'm not your friend, buddy.
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
07/21/21 11:41:16 PM
#163:


Reigning_King posted...
ReturnOfFa posted...
I don't discriminate, I don't think anyone should have kids period.
anti-natalism discriminates against everyone tho so u r wrong again wow ez

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
07/21/21 11:42:18 PM
#164:


your response: no they will arrive at this decision through 'logic', as I have presented

everyone: hahahahahahahaha

GOOD LUCK BIG UPHILL BATTLE BROTHER

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
Zareth
07/21/21 11:58:31 PM
#165:


Veedrock- posted...
TC: Unless you're poor.
I mean, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't

---
In my opinion, all slavery is wrong, even the really fancy kind - Mead
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/22/21 12:19:50 AM
#166:


Zareth posted...
I mean, if you can't afford to have kids, you shouldn't
Why not? What is your basis for saying that?
... Copied to Clipboard!
DirtBasedSoap
07/22/21 12:38:25 AM
#167:


PunishedOni posted...
i thought my posts were pretty funny
i did too

---
hoes mad
... Copied to Clipboard!
Naruto_fan_42
07/22/21 1:25:55 AM
#168:


if you have a genetic disorder you can adopt a child, which is better for the environment and reducing current suffering than having your own

---
PM me if Ganondorf gets buffed
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/22/21 1:35:42 AM
#169:


Naruto_fan_42 posted...
if you have a genetic disorder you can adopt a child, which is better for the environment and reducing current suffering than having your own
I think most people would broadly agree with this sort of thought, which means they realize that there are some lives which aren't worth starting or at least that it is a moral transgression to start them (as I've said, a life worth starting and a life worth living are two separate things). That means that anti-natalism isn't as divorced from their mindset as most of those same people would want to believe. We both agree on this key point, that unborn children should not be subjected to undue suffering by being born, the only difference is that I'm much less picky about what I call undue suffering.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Naruto_fan_42
07/22/21 3:05:31 AM
#171:


well dying as a small child because of predestined genetics and the possibility of suffering in a life that started with all or most of its components is a pretty huge gap

---
PM me if Ganondorf gets buffed
... Copied to Clipboard!
kind9
07/22/21 7:21:32 AM
#172:


Reigning_King posted...
I could give some examples but what is the point given that last sentence of yours in the first paragraph, you clearly don't know much about or respect philosophy, and beyond that it isn't really relevant. I'll keep referring to my thoughts as a philosophy but if you don't like that just mentally sub out the word for something else, it doesn't really matter.
I have no respect for people who think philosophy never fails or who use it to justify/buttress stupid beliefs or to con people. I've been calling antinatalism a philosophy this whole time in case you didn't notice, genius. So you can keep calling it what it is and I will too. Now that you know my disrespect isn't for philosophy itself you can go ahead and list those examples. And maybe go look up the meaning of "extremism". You might be surprised that it's not a synonym for terrorism.

Turns out you're right about the age of the sun, at least partially. It won't be closer to the earth, but it will be burning too bright and hot for the earth to sustain life. The sun won't start to expand until it begins to transition into a red giant in 5 billion years. How long did it take for humans to split from apes?

If you were consistent in your views shouldn't you extend antinatalism to all animals? Your reason for not doing so is because they're just "automatons" and don't experience suffering the same as we do. But how do you know that? Have we fully assessed the sapience of all animals? Do you use the same excuse to justify factory farming? Is the way that we experience suffering all that matters? What about children born with brain defects who don't experience suffering the same? What is the objective measure of suffering that you're using?

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/22/21 7:50:46 AM
#173:


kind9 posted...
I have no respect for people who think philosophy never fails or who use it to justify/buttress stupid beliefs or to con people. I've been calling antinatalism a philosophy this whole time in case you didn't notice, genius. So you can keep calling it what it is and I will too. Now that you know my disrespect isn't for philosophy itself you can go ahead and list those examples. And maybe go look up the meaning of "extremism". You might be surprised that it's not a synonym for terrorism.

Turns out you're right about the age of the sun, at least partially. It won't be closer to the earth, but it will be burning too bright and hot for the earth to sustain life. The sun won't start to expand until it begins to transition into a red giant in 5 billion years. How long did it take for humans to split from apes?

If you were consistent in your views shouldn't you extend antinatalism to all animals? Your reason for not doing so is because they're just "automatons" and don't experience suffering the same as we do. But how do you know that? Have we fully assessed the sapience of all animals? Do you use the same excuse to justify factory farming? Is the way that we experience suffering all that matters? What about children born with brain defects who don't experience suffering the same? What is the objective measure of suffering that you're using?
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

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.

What you're thinking of is called Efilism, which is slightly similar to anti-natalism except for all forms of life (efil being life backwards). The main difference being that since you can't convince a dog or cow to not breed forced sterilization or outright extermination would necessarily have to take place which isn't the case with anti-natalism. I've read their literature but I'm not a proponent of the school myself. The only relevant question in this final list is about the case of a brain damaged child who experiences suffering differently... 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.
... Copied to Clipboard!
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.

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/22/21 11:32:13 AM
#175:


kind9 posted...
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.

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.

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

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.

I'm interested in those papers since no one itt has come close to refuting a single one of the points I've made (with some still going unadressed), I'll have to look for them.

Your whole thread about life evolving after humans is totally irrelevant to the case I'm making just like you philosophy tangent and the concern for non human animals. I don't know how many times I have to repeat this for you to understand and stop wasting my time with it.

Another irrelevant time waster is you being obtuse enough to think when I say "my philosophy" I mean I invented anti-natalism. The United States is "my" country but I'm not saying I own it or anything when I say that. Also David Benatar is not the person who invented the idea either, he's just the popularized it in the modern era. There are old testament bible verses of men like Job lamenting that they had the misfortune of being born instead of dying in their mother's womb, and the general idea is almost assuredly older than that even.

I suppose I will say nothing that guy in the video says is wrong, it's just that the state of cats isn't a priority for anti-natalists. I also like how you call it garbage philosophy while in the same breath saying you only just now heard about it. Basing your understanding of it off of probably a free mintures worth of googling, very professional.
... Copied to Clipboard!
kind9
07/22/21 12:14:25 PM
#176:


Reigning_King posted...
I also like how you call it garbage philosophy while in the same breath saying you only just now heard about it. Basing your understanding of it off of probably a free mintures worth of googling, very professional
When I learned that this philosophy came from Inmendham and read the first sentence of his wiki about it I knew it was garbage.

Reigning_King posted...
I'm interested in those papers since no one itt has come close to refuting a single one of the points I've made (with some still going unadressed), I'll have to look for them.
Maybe try google scholar. Here's one of many:

What Is the Question to which Anti-Natalism Is the Answer?
Nicholas Smyth
Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 23 (1):1-17 (2020)

To begin, Benatar has argued that coming into existence, far from ever constituting a net benefit, always constitutes a net harm (Benatar 2006, 1). In order to establish this, he outlines what he calls the basic asymmetry:(1) The presence of pain is bad, and (2) the presence of pleasure is good...However... (3) The absence of pain is good even if that good is not enjoyed by anyone; but (4) the absence of pleasure is not bad unless there is somebody for whom this absence is a deprivation. (Benatar 2006, 30) This asymmetry, he claims, shows that it is better never to come into existence. Roughly, this is because the absence of pain always counts in favor of not existing, whereas the absence of pleasure never counts against not existing. Now, Benatar immediately notices that the argument has an undesirably abstract or impersonal flavor. This is because we are meant to place a great deal of weight on an asymmetry in valuation that is said to apply to a person who, by definition, does not exist. As soon as we start to speak of a real, flesh-and-blood person, the proposition (2) will justify their existence, and the asymmetry will no longer hold. Yet, can mere intuitions about badness with respect to non-existent persons really suffice to show that reproduction is necessarily a moral evil?How can the absence of pain count in favor of a decision if there is no-one forwhom that absence is good?

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa
07/22/21 2:10:38 PM
#177:


Well, don't worry OP. Rest assured, nobody is gonna procreate with you anyway
... Copied to Clipboard!
PunishedOni
07/22/21 2:21:43 PM
#178:


OhhhJa posted...
Well, don't worry OP. Rest assured, nobody is gonna procreate with you anyway
got their ass

---
hi im chelsea ^__^
'thou shalt not suffer a dentist to live' - chelsea
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mad_Max
07/22/21 3:06:09 PM
#179:


OhhhJa posted...
Well, don't worry OP. Rest assured, nobody is gonna procreate with you anyway
Boom lmao

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
07/22/21 7:37:18 PM
#180:


Reigning_King posted...
I'm interested in those papers since no one itt has come close to refuting a single one of the points I've made (with some still going unadressed), I'll have to look for them.

If we look at this philosophically we can see that this is simply your own perspective. I find that many of the refutations have been perfectly valid and indicate a large degree of contradicting values in your own beliefs.

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
07/22/21 7:37:45 PM
#181:


rigid people are hilarious

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
ReturnOfFa
07/22/21 7:52:07 PM
#182:


just admit the faults

do it

---
girls like my fa
... Copied to Clipboard!
DirtBasedSoap
07/22/21 7:53:23 PM
#183:


ReturnOfFa posted...
just admit the faults

do it
ego2big

---
hoes mad
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/23/21 5:34:26 AM
#184:


kind9 posted...
"How can the absence of pain count in favor of a decision if there is no-one forwhom that absence is good?"

I covered this back on page 1 (and Benatar covers it in his book). Basically it boils down to the idea that most people can see a given thing/event would be cruel if it were to happen to a hypothetical person. This is why I've been pointing out that most people believe that at least certain people shouldn't breed, because it wouldn't be fair to their potential offspring for whatever reason. This is a completly natural way of think, to find the suffering of someone who doesn't, but could, exist disagreeable even though this suffering doesn't actually exist. On the other hand how many people would say that they find it disagreeable that potential people miss out on the joys of life? Who says that women should have as many children as they possibly can since it's a bad thing that their potential children are missing out? Far from being a natural mindset something like that sounds insane. There is clearly a case of asymmetry here.

Another way of looking at it is the counter factual sense where we look at a human who does or did exist in reality and imagine a parallel dimension where they didn't. What constitutes suffering and if all suffering is good or bad is debatable but I don't think it can be denied that some suffering is entirely pointless. It's an extreme example but consider two people who get into a car accident and while one dies instantly the other doesn't and instead dies a slow and agonizing death pinned down inside the wreak. The extra time the poor soul gets can't be used to do anything meaningful like call their family one last time or write a will, they simply suffer and die after awhile. I don't think it's controversial to say in that specific case they would have been better off simply dying instantly as well. Anyways back to the point, if you look at the life of anyone in "Universe A" you will see that they have some degree of suffering in their life. The non existence of this suffering in "Universe B" is obviously a benefit even if they don't exist, while the non existence of the joy and positive things they felt isn't an issue since they don't exist. Saying the joy they missed out on is relevant would be falling into the whole "producing as many people as possible so they don't miss out on the joy of life" insanity I brought up before.

Even if you completely reject this entire argument of asymmetry then you would still need to justify gambling with people's lives and why bringing anyone into the world who is likely to suffer more than they enjoy life isn't unethical. You would have to develop or adopt a method of quantifying the quality of a life (keeping in mind the distortion most people have about their quality of life) and show good evidence that any given unborn child will live a good life. It is simply not a defendable position.

OhhhJa posted...
Well, don't worry OP. Rest assured, nobody is gonna procreate with you anyway
You say that as if outside opinion on that subject is relevant to me at all. I don't want to, and would never do it but it's entirely my own choice.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/23/21 5:43:35 AM
#185:


I'm going to get this back to the forefront since everyone ignored it and it leads into another facet of this issue.

Reigning_King posted...
Say you desire Outcome X and will do anything to avoid Outcome Y.
You believe that by following Plan A you will obtain Outcome X.
Later you learn objectively and without question that following Plan A will result in Outcome Y, not X.

Would you still follow Plan A or attempt to construct a Plan B?

I'll also ask another question, a very simple straightforward one.

To all pro-natalists... what is your end goal? Mine is ending human suffering as I've made clear. I would like to hear your own individual end games, how long you think it will take to achieve them by following a pro-natal path, and how sure you are you will get what you want after that time. I assume it must be something fabulously noble if you think that the end of human suffering is a bad idea since it would interfere with your own plans. Anyways in my case, all human suffering could be ended within a century with 100% certainty if everyone followed my philosophy.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Truth_Decay
07/23/21 6:28:16 AM
#186:


Mine is ending human suffering as I've made clear.
What makes you think people who suffer want their suffering to end through the means you're proposing? Very arrogant of you to assume your idea is something people need, or even want.

Everyone suffers, this is true. But for many, suffering is a small part of the overall life experience, and suffering is manageable.

Humans are adaptable. For people born into extreme poverty and famine, suffering becomes a part of life, and they find joy and happiness in their experience still.

For many people born into seemingly impossible situations, who experience tremendous adversity, they still come away enjoying life. They don't look to throw up the white flag, they look for ways to improve their lives, and the lives of their forebears.

Aside from being incredibly arrogant of you to assume antinatalism is the best choice for ending human suffering, the idea that we should give up and end humanity is beyond ignorant. Every year we inch closer to ending cancer. Someone who isn't born yet could be the key to solving the riddle, and once we discover that cure, think of the countless numbers of people whose suffering - at least in terms of the cancer experience - will end.

And that's one facet of suffering. You're proposing throwing in the towel. Future generations could solve so many issues that we face as a species, as well as issues that that have a negative effect on societies, environment, animal welfare, etc etc.

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.

---
Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind
... Copied to Clipboard!
kind9
07/23/21 6:53:51 AM
#187:


Reigning_King posted...
This is why I've been pointing out that most people believe that at least certain people shouldn't breed, because it wouldn't be fair to their potential offspring for whatever reason. This is a completly natural way of think, to find the suffering of someone who doesn't, but could, exist disagreeable even though this suffering doesn't actually exist.
We can make this judgement because we already have foreknowledge of the likelihood of that person being born with defects. I would imagine most people take issue with this kind of birth. I don't know about the possible worlds argument, but the paper I quoted actually goes on to address it.

It is revealing that Benatar cannot elucidate his allegedly personal claim without saying that we are in fact comparing the values of two possible worlds. Since he cannot say that one possible life is better than another, he must say that one world is better than another. But the question of what is better for a person is not identical (or, we might add, even remotely similar) to the question of which of two worlds is best. Moreover, when asking what would be best for their future children, prospective parents are not asking about the comparative value of two possible worlds. Benatar, despite what he says, is answering the fourth and most abstract of the questions listed at the beginning of this paper.7 But this is not the question that any prospective parent is asking, nor has anyone shown that it is the question they ought to be asking.

I agree with the above user. Why have antinatalists given up on striving to eliminate as much suffering as possible by making life better for everyone? That is a noble cause. Antinatalism is more like a lazy escape route for edgelords.

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/23/21 7:27:32 AM
#188:


Truth_Decay posted...
What makes you think people who suffer want their suffering to end through the means you're proposing? Very arrogant of you to assume your idea is something people need, or even want.

Everyone suffers, this is true. But for many, suffering is a small part of the overall life experience, and suffering is manageable.

Humans are adaptable. For people born into extreme poverty and famine, suffering becomes a part of life, and they find joy and happiness in their experience still. For many people born into seemingly impossible situations, who experience tremendous adversity, they still come away enjoying life. They don't look to throw up the white flag, they look for ways to improve their lives, and the lives of their forebears.

Aside from being incredibly arrogant of you to assume antinatalism is the best choice for ending human suffering, the idea that we should give up and end humanity is beyond ignorant. Every year we inch closer to ending cancer. Someone who isn't born yet could be the key to solving the riddle, and once we discover that cure, think of the countless numbers of people whose suffering - at least in terms of the cancer experience - will end. And that's one facet of suffering. You're proposing throwing in the towel. Future generations could solve so many issues that we face as a species, as well as issues that that have a negative effect on societies, environment, animal welfare, etc etc.

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.

You, like so many others before you show a basic misunderstanding about what anti-natalism is. Here's a hint, it's in the name, natal as in birth. You're talking about currently living humans, I'm talking about potential humans, two different subjects. Also I've never claimed my philosophy was something anyone needed or (directly) wanted, pretty arrogant of you to put words in my mouth. I'm simply pointing out that it is the morally correct thing thing to do.

This reeks of first world privilege. How many times a week do you go to sleep hungry? Thirsty? In pain? In fear? Really now.

Alright let me ask you, would you be fine switching places with someone in extreme poverty in a famine? I mean you're effectively claiming that one can't assess one's situation by any objective metric and suffering is 100% perception. What about if you were trapped in someone's basement torture and rape dungeon? I mean you could just adapt right? Find joy in being fed day old table scraps instead of week old ones right? That line of thinking also lays the blame of anyone who feels that they are suffering on themselves. If someone loses their legs in an accident and feels bad about it they should just adapt and get over it, they're choosing to feel bad about it by your logic. That totally isn't a disgusting and insulting way to think on your part.

The ONLY choice for ending human suffering is human extinction, literally nothing else would work. This isn't a matter of opinion, this is an outright, undeniable fact. As long as humans exist human suffering will exist. Anti-natalism is the least violent and least invasive method I can think of, there is no Infinity Gauntlet laying around that would let someone snap their fingers and bring it about instantly and painlessly. You point about a potential person curing cancer is irrelevant, if there are no humans in existence than there will be no human cancer to be cured, why bring millions if not billions of children into the world, all of whom are GUARANTEED to suffer, on a gamble that one of them might solve a problem that only exists because people are cruel enough to keep breeding in the first place? The very reason humans are animate in the first place is because of our problems. Every single action undertaken by any human is a striving to fulfill a desire, to meet a need, this "want" is inseparable from humanity.

Progress towards WHAT? You ignored my questions on that matter (and the other one) so I ask you directly to address them now, go on.

... Copied to Clipboard!
Truth_Decay
07/23/21 7:35:55 AM
#189:


Reigning_King posted...
You ignored

Seems you've ignored a critical part of my post:

Reigning_King posted...
You, like so many others before you show a basic misunderstanding about what anti-natalism is. Here's a hint, it's in the name, natal as in birth. You're talking about currently living humans, I'm talking about potential humans, two different subjects.

Truth_Decay posted...
Every year we inch closer to ending cancer. Someone who isn't born yet could be the key to solving the riddle, and once we discover that cure, think of the countless numbers of people whose suffering - at least in terms of the cancer experience - will end.

Don't complain that someone isn't paying attention or is misunderstanding you, when you yourself can't be bothered to pay attention and read someone's post.


---
Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind
... Copied to Clipboard!
Truth_Decay
07/23/21 7:38:07 AM
#190:


Reigning_King posted...
The ONLY choice for ending human suffering is human extinction, literally nothing else would work.
Extreme ignorance on your part. I've laid out for you why in my first post, if you bother to actually read it.

---
Seek the truth / Free your mind
Reach a deeper root / Eat the fruit / Leave the rind
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/23/21 7:50:56 AM
#191:


kind9 posted...
"Moreover, when asking what would be best for their future children, prospective parents are not asking about the comparative value of two possible worlds."

It's difficult to tackle the points in these snippets since I'm lacking full context but I would argue here that it is something parents should be asking themselves. Every time we deliberate about a choice we are basically trying to "see" parallel realities by imagining what outcomes each of our decisions will have. Nobody thinks about it like that since it's such a common everyday thing but still. I can sit here to myself and think "hmm, if I have a child I'll be forcing someone else to live a life they might find disagreeable or suffer in excessively for my own selfish reasons, but if I don't have a child then my hands will be free of those sins." I'm imagining two different worlds, and the lack of harm to my hypothetical child in World 2 is a definite bonus the way I see it.

kind9 posted...
Why have antinatalists given up on striving to eliminate as much suffering as possible by making life better for everyone? That is a noble cause. Antinatalism is more like a lazy escape route for edgelords.
There is a big difference in wanting to simply reduce the amount of human suffering in the world and wanting to eliminate it entirely. If suffering were a hydra it would be the difference between sacrificing countless soldiers to try to cut off it's heads and keep them more or less in check or sending a relatively small number to attack the body and kill it directly and for all time. I find the first approach wasteful and pointless, when one head is cut off (problem plaguing humanity solved), more will grow to replace it. Consider the literal meaning of the word Utopia, it means a place that exists nowhere.

I really don't get how you can call the reduction of human suffering noble but condemn the eradication of it.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/23/21 8:20:19 AM
#192:


Truth_Decay posted...
Don't complain that someone isn't paying attention or is misunderstanding you, when you yourself can't be bothered to pay attention and read someone's post.
...Are you being serious right now? Alright, I'm going to use this as a litmus test to see if you're capable of admitting that you're wrong.

The part of my post (#188) you quote in post #189 is referring to the first paragraph in your post #186, this:

Truth_Decay posted...
What makes you think people who suffer want their suffering to end through the means you're proposing? Very arrogant of you to assume your idea is something people need, or even want.

When I said you were talking about people who currently exist this is what I was referring to. The phrases "People who suffer" and "...something people need, or even want." very obviously shows you were talking about currently living people in this paragraph, after all people who haven't been born can't suffer nor do they have any wants or needs. You bringing up living people when they aren't the focus here is why I called you out by saying:

Reigning_King posted...
You, like so many others before you show a basic misunderstanding about what anti-natalism is. Here's a hint, it's in the name, natal as in birth. You're talking about currently living humans, I'm talking about potential humans, two different subjects. Also I've never claimed my philosophy was something anyone needed or (directly) wanted, pretty arrogant of you to put words in my mouth. I'm simply pointing out that it is the morally correct thing thing to do.

My first paragraph was a direct response to your first paragraph, that's generally how the exchanges have been going itt and just in forum discussions in general. I use that format because I like to try to cover every part of my opponent's posts instead of just focusing on a small part of it and ignoring the rest like you ha e consistently done to me.

You didn't bring up your hypothetical unborn cancer doctor until your fifth paragraph which my remark in my first obviously isn't talking about. Even ignoring the space between the statements and basic context clues I never said you were ONLY talking about humans who were alive, I was saying you're making the mistake of mixing the two groups and treating them like they were the same, which they aren't so there is literally no conflict here except in your head.

Truth_Decay posted...
Extreme ignorance on your part. I've laid out for you why in my first post, if you bother to actually read it.
...your first post? The one where you said:

Truth_Decay posted...
Can we ever achieve a life without *any* suffering? Absolutely not.
?

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. Please tell me how to end human suffering short of extinction if we will never find a way to be free of it in our current world? I want to END human suffering, not just REDUCE it, obviously there are many ways to do the latter but as I've said I don't think that's the right path. So where is my ignorance you quote coming from on THIS singular issue, think me a fool or madman on everything else but explain yourself here.
... Copied to Clipboard!
kind9
07/23/21 8:38:39 AM
#193:


Reigning_King posted...
There is a big difference in wanting to simply reduce the amount of human suffering in the world and wanting to eliminate it entirely.
What about what I said implies that I want to simply reduce suffering? I said "eliminate suffering as much as possible." In case you didn't know, quality of life has been on a steady incline for centuries. As science and technology improves, who knows what the future holds? I mean other than you with your power of omniscience to claim as an undeniable fact that human suffering will always exist.

Reigning_King posted...
I really don't get how you can call the reduction of human suffering noble but condemn the eradication of it.
What does it matter if you eliminate human suffering when there are no humans left to experience that blissful existence? I don't care about imaginary people in imaginary worlds. I care about extant humanity. When there are no humans left and the concept of "good" no longer has meaning or application, what good have you accomplished?

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/23/21 9:16:56 AM
#194:


kind9 posted...
What about what I said implies that I want to simply reduce suffering? I said "eliminate suffering as much as possible." In case you didn't know, quality of life has been on a steady incline for centuries. As science and technology improves, who knows what the future holds? I mean other than you with your power of omniscience to claim as an undeniable fact that human suffering will always exist.

What does it matter if you eliminate human suffering when there are no humans left to experience that blissful existence? I don't care about imaginary people in imaginary worlds. I care about extant humanity. When there are no humans left and the concept of "good" no longer has meaning or application, what good have you accomplished?
Even if you could somehow reduce global human suffering by 99.9% of its current value that is still only reducing it, not ending it. I should not have to explain the meaning of basic words to you. I don't need to be omniscient to say human suffering is tied to human existence, it is something so simple a child could grasp it, the question is whether or not you accept that fact, which most people do by saying the suffering inherent to life is worth the good parts. If you actually think there is a way to totally eliminate all human suffering while humans exist, you're wrong to a staggering degree. Even in some insane sci-fi future where all wants and needs are instantly taken care of for humans and everyone is immortal and invulnerable (so that the suffering caused by death and injury are eliminated) there would still be problems, conflicts between people, boredom, the unsustainably of such a society. Hell if there were no problems at all, no possibility of ANY type of suffering no matter how small then no one would do anything. Why get out of bed in the morning if you were 100% satisfied while laying there? You don't need to eat, or piss, or even breathe because all of that is (somehow) not an issue. If you get up because you want to socialize then that means you weren't fully satisfied being alone which is impossible in this ridiculous utopia (remember how I just pointed out that the word utopia means NO WHERE?). No, the concept of life without suffering is oxymoronic at every level.

Suffering is negative, suffering is undesirable. If you want to be pedantic I'll say "true" suffering, that is suffering beyond the ability of a person to handle which serves no greater purpose or confers any benefits, is those things. Anyone who cares about morality should be able to acknowledge we should try to help people avoid true suffering as much as we can. "As much as we can" logically means we should aim for 100% reduction, or elimination of true suffering. As I have pointed out and the vast majority of the planet would agree with, this is impossible with any traditional means. Hence anti-natalism. That no one would be around to experience good things anymore is a complete nonissue as I have said several times unless you're a loon.

Reigning_King posted...
how many people would say that they find it disagreeable that potential people miss out on the joys of life? Who says that women should have as many children as they possibly can since it's a bad thing that their potential children are missing out?
... Copied to Clipboard!
kind9
07/23/21 9:50:19 AM
#195:


Reigning_King posted...
If you actually think there is a way to totally eliminate all human suffering while humans exist
I'm not saying I believe this. I'm saying I don't believe the opposite, that there will never be a way to totally eliminate human suffering, and you're doing nothing to convince me except reasserting it as a fact. You're making a knowledge claim that I'm not comfortable making. You claim to know that elimination of human suffering is unachievable, but you don't really know that, you're just incredulous to believe otherwise.

Reigning_King posted...
That no one would be around to experience good things anymore is a complete nonissue as I have said several times unless you're a loon.
I think it's a good question. Who benefits from antinatalism? Literally no one.

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
OhhhJa
07/23/21 11:18:02 AM
#196:


If only OP's parents had been anti-natalists
... Copied to Clipboard!
Mad_Max
07/23/21 11:39:16 AM
#197:


OhhhJa posted...
If only OP's parents had been anti-natalists
lmao

---
... Copied to Clipboard!
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
... Copied to Clipboard!
Far-Queue
07/23/21 2:42:22 PM
#199:


OhhhJa posted...
If only...
lmao


---
https://imgur.com/ZwO4qO2
"I'm a pathetic Simp and am proud to be exploited" - Lord_Shadow
... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/23/21 4:34:36 PM
#200:


kind9 posted...
I'm not saying I believe this. I'm saying I don't believe the opposite, that there will never be a way to totally eliminate human suffering, and you're doing nothing to convince me except reasserting it as a fact. You're making a knowledge claim that I'm not comfortable making. You claim to know that elimination of human suffering is unachievable, but you don't really know that, you're just incredulous to believe otherwise.

I think it's a good question. Who benefits from antinatalism? Literally no one.

It's a binary, either ending human suffering short of ending human existence is possible or it isn't. If you don't believe we will never do it than you believe we will, or at least can do it. A double negative (don't-never) equals a positive, this is basic English grammar here. If someone said "God doesn't exist" and I said in response "I don't believe that God doesn't exist" that translates into "I believe God exists", now sub out the word God for the phrase "ending human suffering short of ending humanity". Ignoring me having to explain something this simple to you at least I've made an effort to explain why I think the way I do outside of asserting it as a fact (a fact the vast majority of the world would agree with) with my little sci-fi scenario. You haven't explained at all how such a thing might be possible without or even with fundamentally breaking the concept of humanity except vaugly pointing towards scientific advances, as if any new technology would cause problems as well as solve them, or as if any technology that could be used for great good can't also be used for great evil. In my sci-fi scenario I even glossed over these points as if they could be solved and still showed that problems and suffering would exist. You've ignored so many of my other points but I'll ask you to elaborate here, how could suffering be ended? Keep in mind that billions of children would have to be born to keep society going in this utopian future, all of whom will suffer and many suffer greatly on the road to the future I deny exists, is all of that sacrifice acceptable?

Who benefits from an alcoholic schizophrenic crack addict in a physically, emotionally, and sexually abusive long term relationship not bringing a child into that mix? The unborn child obviously. Or would such a person having a child and introducing them to the situation not be bad in your eyes? You being too selfish and inflexible to conceive of benefiting someone who could but doesn't exist isn't an argument.

... Copied to Clipboard!
Reigning_King
07/23/21 5:16:34 PM
#201:


Truth_Decay posted...
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:

^ 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:

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.
This is one of the worst attempts at saving face I have ever seen. Let me reiterate:

Reigning_King posted...
I never said you were ONLY talking about humans who were alive, I was saying you're making the mistake of mixing the two groups and treating them like they were the same, which they aren't
Maybe stop ignoring key parts of my post. Even if you want to act like I was in the wrong for not taking your "complex" post as a whole it doesn't even matter either way because you still fucked up as I pointed out and that makes your singling out my first paragraph pure hypocrisy on your part. I really should end this post here since you've proven without a doubt you can't admit to your mistakes or faulty reasoning even when carefully spelled out for you but I'm a nice guy so I'll keep going, using the same format I've used for the entire topic.

Why is it strange that I'm focused on the main point of my argument? It's the one being discussed now isn't it? You people have ignored various other ends of it, so for now I'll talk about ending all human suffering.

If you haven't noticed this thread is basically just me verses everyone else, I don't have time to fully entertain every tangent like how long it will take the sun to make the earth uninhabitable or what the meaning of the word philosophy is. Even then I've tried to at least touch on them once or twice to see if the person who brought them up is going anywhere relevant before I write them off. If you can find a single instant of me calling a given point irrelevant the first time it is brought up and without elaborate on my part then I'll admit to having made a (understandable) mistake. Even then at least I have the decency of stating my stance on an issue instead of just acting like it was never brought up the way you do with the majority of my points.

Ending human suffering necessarily involves human extinction, so if anti-natalism isn't a good way to go about that what is? Global genocide? Waiting for a cosmic event or catastrophic natural disaster to wipe us out? If you think that preserving humanity is more important than ending human suffering just say that outright, because you have to ultimately pick one or the other.

What would you say of someone who hands out contraceptives to the homeless because they want to spare their future children from that fate or being wards of the state? Are they doing something wrong? Are they doing something that ultimately doesn't matter because the people they want to help don't exist?

I see you still haven't learned the difference between people who exist and those who don't but could. You're talking about unborn people "with full comfort" saying things like "if given the choice" as if someone who doesn't exist can have a preference the same as a living person. That type of thinking is actually insane, the unborn can't think or feel or weight the good and bad of the world and decide if they want to be born or not. You're anthropomorphizing a concept here to justify the blatant unethical action of bringing babies into the world without their consent by telling yourself "well they probably would have consented to this if we could ask them" when there was no one to ask in the first place.

Why wouldn't you want a life full of pointless suffering? Weren't you the one who said humans are adaptable? If they can adapt to horrible situations and return to the same mental baseline, if they can still find happiness in their situation than there is no objective way to measure how well off someone is except their own self assessment. Suffering is all in your head (apparently) so you wouldn't be changing anything if you were born in poverty or blind or in chronic pain because you would just adapt to it and therefore there is nothing wrong with such states, right? I mean the human ability of adaptability can't possibly cause people to become comfortable in situations that are factually not good for them, right? You were singing the praises of it so I have too assume that's the case.
... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List
Page List: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6