Thorongil

Yes there is.

Indeed. That's why it's time to ban assault trucks.

Aaaand you lost me. Here (since you cited youtube videos): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZPDpk8NA-g

:rofl: What was that about crass ignorance and hasty hyperbole? Why, it's the sound of your own words flying through the air like a boomerang, smackin...

No you don't.

Which is why, incidentally, I generally have no time for Nietzsche. To affirm optimism in the knowledge that pessimism is true is diabolical. It is an...

No, clearly not. Who would ever think that? The only question is what to do with the poor bastards once the glorious revolution ushers in utopia. Boil...

As darth says, the problem of evil and suffering doesn't go away once God is rejected thereby. Instead of God, nature is placed in the dock and cannot...

I said "quite reasonable," which would imply more than 50%.

No I haven't. You never really addressed what I said. If you can't carry a big stick, at least speak clearly and softly.

Indeed.

When I was a full throated antinatalist, I was concerned with such things, however ridiculous they may seem. Even the most remote and minute amount of...

Quite reasonable.

Just as the torturer could make reasonable predictions about whether, on average, his victims will develop a Stockholm Syndrome such that they feel gr...

Yes, in the absence of a soteriological or metaphysical framework in which procreation would be viewed as a supererogatory good (which I myself don't ...

I thought you were trying to ask who Trump's top philosophers are. Someone should ask him that.

You don't read, do you?

Baroque. It contains the best of everything in some form.

Indeed. That's fair. It is true that I need to sort out my metaphysics before ultimately deciding this issue.

Yeah, I don't feel like going down the rabbit hole of disputing the claim that the self is "socially constructed." Social constructionism tries my pat...

Yes, do double down on your misinterpretation. I see you're killing time before deleting the thread.

My, what a literalistic irritant you are.

A religion of one is a religion of none.

But that still doesn't get one to an ought.

On theism, only God is perfect, though. A perfect nature would be incapable of sinning.

Yes, good point.

In a way, yes. You're using another person for your own benefit. Why have children? "Because I want to be a more selfless person." That is inherently ...

This is indeed a disagreement. I would reverse this order. Yes, probably.

Come off it. Now it's my turn to accuse you of being confused. Specifically, you seem to be confusing a motive with an intention. One could intend to ...

Yes, but if the action cannot be compassionate then the motive cannot be either. In the case of procreation, because the action cannot be compassionat...

Right, I get this. There is no confusion. I have spoken of procreation, the action.

What is it about an ethic being "intra-worldly" that makes it insufficient?

Right. Your second sentence above doesn't negate the first. You do have a goal in pursuing philosophy: the truth. That makes philosophy instrumental. ...

I'm not a theist, but I would suggest reading Romans 9.

You can plant a tree and you can save money for yourself (since you already exist), but you cannot do anything to what which doesn't exist.

No? I'm not sure I'm following this. I said this earlier: "my natalist interlocutor needs to establish that creating life is good, not that life is go...

There is a third category of action, yes, which refers to malicious actions. Thus: Compassion = moral. Self interest = amoral. Malice = immoral. But t...

Just because a motive is hidden to oneself doesn't mean it isn't selfish.

Are you an Objectivist? To say that selfishness can be morally good is the move Ayn Rand made. To me, that obliterates meaningful distinctions between...

Reread that last sentence. You're not following the plot here, it seems. I'm not an antinatalist. I'm just showing how your objections to antinatalism...

Sure, but I don't accept that definition. Our basic axioms disagree, so I don't think we're going to get anywhere.

You were a utilitarian, though, weren't you?

This doesn't address what I said, and I suspect you don't understand what I said. I didn't give an argument, I made a distinction, one that refutes th...

Yes, in a godless, materialistic universe, there is no nonselfish reason to procreate. This thread has solidified that opinion. I am not a Christian e...

Well, there goes that reason, then. I don't know. I don't feel your response addressed my concerns, but we could be talking past each other.

This is a post-natal contingency. I'm talking about the selfishness of procreation itself, not the possible lack thereof as a result of having childre...

Well said. I agree. Here, though, is where I might offer some disagreement. There is a sense in which this choice can be made, namely, by committing s...

This brings to mind a cheeky objection to antinatalism, which is that antinatalists should have as many children as possible to spread the message and...

Yeah, this is what I had in mind when I mentioned Indian religious traditions in my other post. That said, though they appear to be in the minority, t...

It's still a voluntary choice, though.