schopenhauer1

Yeah same bro. See reply to sushi.

Ugh I get Bartricks frustration and turning aggressive. The ethics is NOT based on ends justifies the means reasoning. That’s in fact quite the opposi...

See my amendment to the argument above.

So people can't get past the word "deserve" because it sounds like something to do with retribution. In other words, in this conception, deserving or ...

Great, more unnecessary births. You natalists will find any way to fuck over yet another life. More workers, more adherents, more sufferers. Let them ...

There are things that can exist but don’t and things that can never exist. Cmon you know this (I hope).

Why?? Someone WILL be harmed if you do X. Don’t do X.

If I intend to put someone in harms way at x time in the future, not sure why I can’t take that into consideration.

That has too much of a teleological claim for my liking. Like we have to be here to go through it. Rather, we were placed here and we have to go throu...

I don't know @"Bartricks" claim actual makes sense then to your argument.. An innocent person then doesn't deserve harm, but they will be harmed. So t...

@"Wayfarer", I guess I'll rephrase it to fit your more Idealism leanings.. If no person was ever born, would there be a need for release (ala gnostics...

So? No one has an obligation to a species, but a person(s). That is simply a fact, not a moral claim.

I feel like I'm playing speed chess: antinatalism edition :lol:.

I mean, the argument goes: "Don't use people for an/your agenda". Using them here would be harming them unnecessarily. Why would you harm someone unne...

Gee whiz, what is the outcome of procreating someone? Is it, wait, an actual person?

This is the naturalistic fallacy. Just because of "evolutionary pressure" doesn't mean we MUST decide to go along with that pressure (whether cultural...

This is no difference then "The ends justifies the means".. You get to harm people because YOUR ends matter. And of course YOUR ends are sacred and MU...

But to bring someone into the world just to gain a higher truth is using/harming them unnecessarily for an/your agenda.

Though I tend towards Schopenhauerian Pessimism, this particular AN argument I made earlier doesn't need it. You simply have to agree that harming peo...

But you just made a fact-based argument for AN, no? :D.

I wouldn't cause harm unnecessarily to others to achieve what I think is right though. I wouldn't create suffering when I didn't have to for mitigatin...

@"Bartricks" @"Isaac", I see this more clearly formulated in an argument I've made in the past that goes something like, "If you can't bring a person ...

No one cares about my suggestions for improving things, just about complying with the agenda at this stage. Like everyone else.

Indeed, Manchin is pretty much a Republican. That’s well known. Its West Virginia. Not sure what Sinemas deal is either but Arizona is not known as a ...

It's an existential problem, not political. Arguing about which party should have power is looking to the window dressing for what is essential. It is...

No, I agree with you.. This will happen in the short term. I am talking long term.. ten years or more.. Demographics just aren't in their favor.

Filibuster. You need 60% not 51% to do anything at all.

And there's the difference.

Why? Unless Trump's indicted with something that puts him in jail or prevents him from running, the same electorate that supports him won't care. The ...

I watched some of it from your link. I mean, it's the same theme we've been hearing.. Party above principles. Maybe you should bullet point some speci...

The way people work around this is throwing out stuff like "But Hunter Biden.. Clinton...But BLM caused riots at various capitols, and so on". All red...

He wanted a world revolution that eventually gave power to the state which "withered away" to a classless society controlled by proletariat-led counci...

I just didn't know how to reply to it. Interesting. All of this just doesn't seem likely. Until then, best not throw more workers into the mix.

This. Unexploited, unalienated worker paradise I guess. If it's not a better world under Marxist structure, then of course, the whole thing is meaning...

What do you mean? There are lots of arguments that are coherent and "rational". I'm just saying, Marxists want a complete change in the way we do our ...

Until then, why produce more workers? Situational AN seems appropriate. They are feeding exactly that which they loathe.

Haven’t even seen an inkling of a groundswell of Marxist anything. At best you’re getting legislation for 32 hour work weeks but doubtful. Antinatalis...

Marxisms were tried and failed. All you got is the Nordic model at best.

I’m not arguing about immutable social conditions which I never brought up in the first place. Just Marxism.

Straw men. The ones that stuck weren’t Marxist. There is no us slavery, France eventually had a democracy of sorts, Haiti did become its own nation. N...

Hippies in the 60s? What are we talking? Can’t be civil rights movement. No it isn’t but I mean, where’s the revolution? Seems further away than ever ...

This is bad faith.

Because since 1848, we’ve seen great strides in the whole Marxist revolution working out?

If the village is hostile to the villagers, then certainly one wouldn't want to expose more villagers to the village.

:up: Yep, answered pretty much how I would.

Well, thanks for tempering that. I really appreciate your benevolence.

You would think.

I've seen self-reported ones here and elsewhere.. Now, if that is actually the case in action, thoughts, behaviors, and attitudes outside of the forum...

You handle disagreement very well I see.

But then aren't the children being used to promote a cause? If you believe in deontological ethics surrounding the idea of not using people as a means...