Antinatalism

Fallible · **#1001** by **Fallible** » Jul 26, 2016 7:59 am

I know, but shh.

The_Metatron · **#1002** by **The_Metatron** » Jul 26, 2016 5:59 pm

laklak wrote:Can I be a flying shooter?

BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA! BUDDA BUDDA BUDDA! DIE COMMIE!

You forgot to add:

ACK ACK ACK ACK. Kraut, 12 of clock! Eat dirt, Easy!

Sent from my iPad Pro using Tapatalk.

jamest · **#1003** by **jamest** » Jul 26, 2016 10:25 pm

The view that you're better off not being born is inspired by negative emotions which honour the materialistic philosophy of nihilism. Antinatalism cannot be deemed a rational view because reason is - or, should be - devoid of allegiance to the emotions. Indeed, the view betrays itself because of its association with nihilism, since if life is meaningless then so too are one's negative emotions which may honour that view.

Antinatalism makes no sense. A reaction consistent with the adoption of nihilism as a philosophy should be to rid oneself of one's emotions, certainly the negative ones [first].

SafeAsMilk · **#1004** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jul 26, 2016 11:33 pm

jamest wrote:The view that you're better off not being born is inspired by negative emotions which honour the materialistic philosophy of nihilism

he said, drawing his wholesale, contrived, unsupported nonsense from somewhere dark and dirty in a feeble attempt to sound sage.

jamest · **#1005** by **jamest** » Jul 26, 2016 11:55 pm

SafeAsMilk wrote:
jamest wrote:The view that you're better off not being born is inspired by negative emotions which honour the materialistic philosophy of nihilism

he said, drawing his wholesale, contrived, unsupported nonsense from somewhere dark and dirty in a feeble attempt to sound sage.

What? It's just basic reason that if you suscribe to nihilism then the view that you're better off not being born is an emotional response to that 'philosophy'. It can't be a rational response, since reason is not (or, shouldn't be) in the business of making value judgements.

This is just basic stuff, squire, highlighting the distinction between reason and emotion. That is, it is one thing to decide that life has its essence in matter and is [therefore] essentially meaningless, but it is another thing altogether to cry one's eyes out in response to this fubar realisation and decide that "One is better off not being born!".

The ass who cries after proclaiming nihilism, is indeed an ass.

SafeAsMilk · **#1006** by **SafeAsMilk** » Jul 27, 2016 2:31 am

So you assume antinatalism=nihilism despite the fact that you point out it can't possibly be nihilism because that would be inconsistent. Jesus, do you even read the stupid shit you write? Do you even bother to read what people say before you start assigning absurd, irrelevant philosophical labels to them?

THWOTH · **#1007** by **THWOTH** » Jul 27, 2016 3:06 am

jamest wrote:The view that you're better off not being born is inspired by negative emotions which honour the materialistic philosophy of nihilism. Antinatalism cannot be deemed a rational view because reason is - or, should be - devoid of allegiance to the emotions. Indeed, the view betrays itself because of its association with nihilism, since if life is meaningless then so too are one's negative emotions which may honour that view.

Antinatalism makes no sense. A reaction consistent with the adoption of nihilism as a philosophy should be to rid oneself of one's emotions, certainly the negative ones [first].

The concern of antinatalists is suffering, to wit; the suffering of the unborn and/or unconceived (once conceived and born). Why decry concerns about suffering as mere emotionalism? If antinatalism is bound to a 'negative' emotional response why should we seek to expunge emotion and not just self-inculcate a rebalancing 'positive' emotional response or attitude to suffering; to render suffering a virtue as it were? No, I feel that's a little simplistic, or at least a little too comforting and tidy typification of antinatalism and antinatalists.

One of the main failures of antinatalism is that the possibility of suffering in those yet to be born seems to automatically outweigh the possibility of suffering's antipole, pleasure, once born - essentially, that an ounce of possible suffering is worth more than a ton of actual pleasure. Another main failure is that it aims to relieve suffering in those without existence: nominal non-existent entities without any substrate or capacity for experience of any sort. There's no meaning to be found in the non-existence of the non-extant, no insights to be gleaned, no understandings to be arrived at. No state can be ascribed to that which does not exist, beyond the nominal state of 'not existing' that is.

Basically, turtles all the way down stuff.

Boyle · **#1008** by **Boyle** » Jul 27, 2016 6:24 am

One of my friends has a pet turtle. The turtle is named Montgomery.

Spinozasgalt · **#1009** by **Spinozasgalt** » Jul 27, 2016 9:38 am

Awww, turtle. :awesome:

MONEYMUFFINS · **#1010** by **MONEYMUFFINS** » Jul 29, 2019 10:10 am

I FIND THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE STRONGLY AGAINST ANTI-NATALISM FEEL SO STRONGLY AGAINST IT BECAUSE THEY FEEL ATTACKED REGARDING THEIR WORTHINESS OF PARENTHOOD. THE ARGUMENT FOR ANTI-NATALISM IS POLITICAL IN A WAY, BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON'S COMPETENCE IN PARENTING. THE ARGUMENT IS MORE ABOUT CONCEDING THAT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO TREAT PEOPLE WELL OVERALL.

WHILE THERE ARE MANY JOYS TO BE HAD WITH LIFE, I DO THINK SOCIETY IS FAR TOO IRRESPONSIBLE TO HANDLE PEOPLE'S WELL-BEING. MANY OPPONENTS OF ANTI-NATALISM ESSENTIALLY ARGUE THAT SPOILSPORTS SHOULDN'T BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN WHETHER OR NOT LIFE DESERVES TO EXIST. HOWEVER, THESE OPPONENTS ONLY SEEM TO DEEPLY APPRECIATE THEIR OWN PERSONAL VALUES AND CONSIDER ANYTHING ELSE AS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS TO BE CONCERNED WITH.

IN MY OPINION, IF EVERYONE WERE WELL-INFORMED ON THIS SUBJECT AND HONEST ENOUGH TO LOOK BEYOND THEIR OWN PERSONAL DESIRES, MOST OF HUMANITY WOULD AGREE THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE BETTER OFF NOT EXISTING. THIS IS EASY FOR ME TO IMAGINE BEING THE CASE, AT LEAST. I AM BAFFLED THAT SO MANY PEOPLE DEEM ANTI-NATALISM AS MERE WHINING.

Spearthrower · **#1011** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 29, 2019 10:11 am

Your keyboard's broken.

Spinozasgalt · **#1012** by **Spinozasgalt** » Jul 29, 2019 10:22 am

Thommo wrote:I LIKE YOUR STYLE. IT IS EASY TO READ.

Svartalf · **#1013** by **Svartalf** » Jul 29, 2019 10:41 am

Actually, it's not, that all caps is tiring on the eyes.

Spearthrower · **#1014** by **Spearthrower** » Jul 29, 2019 12:47 pm

MONEYMUFFINS wrote:
IN MY OPINION, IF EVERYONE WERE WELL-INFORMED ON THIS SUBJECT AND HONEST ENOUGH TO LOOK BEYOND THEIR OWN PERSONAL DESIRES, MOST OF HUMANITY WOULD AGREE THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE BETTER OFF NOT EXISTING.

AND CONSEQUENTLY DISAPPEAR IN A PUFF OF LOGIC.

Scot Dutchy · **#1015** by **Scot Dutchy** » Jul 29, 2019 1:17 pm

Is he trying to say something:

Felix · **#1016** by **Felix** » Aug 13, 2019 10:12 pm

Truth

THWOTH · **#1017** by **THWOTH** » Aug 15, 2019 11:11 am

MONEYMUFFINS wrote:I FIND THAT PEOPLE WHO ARE STRONGLY AGAINST ANTI-NATALISM FEEL SO STRONGLY AGAINST IT BECAUSE THEY FEEL ATTACKED REGARDING THEIR WORTHINESS OF PARENTHOOD. THE ARGUMENT FOR ANTI-NATALISM IS POLITICAL IN A WAY, BUT IT'S NOT ABOUT ANY PARTICULAR PERSON'S COMPETENCE IN PARENTING. THE ARGUMENT IS MORE ABOUT CONCEDING THAT SOCIETY AS A WHOLE CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO TREAT PEOPLE WELL OVERALL.

WHILE THERE ARE MANY JOYS TO BE HAD WITH LIFE, I DO THINK SOCIETY IS FAR TOO IRRESPONSIBLE TO HANDLE PEOPLE'S WELL-BEING. MANY OPPONENTS OF ANTI-NATALISM ESSENTIALLY ARGUE THAT SPOILSPORTS SHOULDN'T BE THE DETERMINING FACTOR IN WHETHER OR NOT LIFE DESERVES TO EXIST. HOWEVER, THESE OPPONENTS ONLY SEEM TO DEEPLY APPRECIATE THEIR OWN PERSONAL VALUES AND CONSIDER ANYTHING ELSE AS NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS TO BE CONCERNED WITH.

IN MY OPINION, IF EVERYONE WERE WELL-INFORMED ON THIS SUBJECT AND HONEST ENOUGH TO LOOK BEYOND THEIR OWN PERSONAL DESIRES, MOST OF HUMANITY WOULD AGREE THAT ALL PEOPLE ARE BETTER OFF NOT EXISTING. THIS IS EASY FOR ME TO IMAGINE BEING THE CASE, AT LEAST. I AM BAFFLED THAT SO MANY PEOPLE DEEM ANTI-NATALISM AS MERE WHINING.

There's two points I'd like to pick up on if I may?

1. "The argument is more about conceding that society as a whole cannot be trusted to treat people well overall."

Which society are we talking about here? If we're talking about a specific society then that suggest there are specific societal issues, problems, or concerns that need to be looked at specifically. If we're talking generally, about all societies, then we're talking about something which is a function of all human social and personal interactions and the argument boils down to "people cannot be trusted to treat other people well."

I believe we're talking about the latter here because you refer to 'people overall', so your anti-natalism appears to be based on your opinion of people in general - a set of which you are a member of course. Would you consider this a fair assessment of your argument: that basically people cannot be trusted to treat other people well? If so, what kinds of good/bad treatments are of particular concern to you?

2. "i do think society is far too irresponsible to handle people's well-being."

Again, you are talking of 'society' but is that really what your mean? If you can acknowledge that not everybody in a society "is far too irresponsible to handle [other] people's well-being," or that where that might not be the case that the well-being of others is not always handled irresponsibly all the time, then we can turn from the general to the specific and perhaps discuss what kinds of treatment, of and by whom, you consider responsible and/or irresponsible.

I am happy to accept your opinion at face value (assuming I have not misrepresented it here of course) but now that we have had your opinion it would be interesting to know what kind of things have informed it. Perhaps you could offer some examples of the kinds of trust, treatment, and responsibility issues which concern you and have led you towards the opinion you currently hold.

THWOTH · **#1018** by **THWOTH** » Aug 15, 2019 11:34 am

jamest wrote:... reason is - or, should be - devoid of allegiance to the emotions....

How's that working out for you?

Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Re: Antinatalism

Who is online