I cannot find the post from sushi that you are quoting from. It does not turn up in my mentions. — Bartricks
If we met a sentient asexual alien species who suffered in the same way as humans do. What would your antinatalist advice be for them? — universeness
For many humans, not reproducing would cause great mental and physical harm as it is a natural compulsion developed over millions of years and it is a very very strong instinct. Why are you unconcerned about this set of harms your antinatalism would cause? — universeness
The second is to argue that despite the injustice that creating us causes, there is something even more morally significant at stake that justifies us in doing so. — Bartricks
If we all stopped procreating that would not make nihilism true — Bartricks
Murder would be wrong, whether or not anybody ever commits a murder. And if we all start murdering each other, that would not make murder right. — Cuthbert
To challenge it one needs an argument that implies the opposite or one needs to deny a premise. — Bartricks
Let's grant all the OP. — Cuthbert
As you indicate, there is a pessimism to it and a sort of aesthetic sadness for many people in the idea of the end result being no person around.. But that doesn't mean the principle is not true. — schopenhauer1
I got it - but I've been listening to Billy Joel ever since you posted..... — Cuthbert
A preacher doesn't make arguments. I make arguments. You just say stuff. It's tedious. Up your game. — Bartricks
Don't procreate. — schopenhauer1
Because not being able to unnecessarily harm others, even if it frustrates ones preferences, even if one is doing it because one wants to focus only on the possible positive outcomes, and intends only the best, is wrong. — schopenhauer1
I mean all of life is going to have harms, and you can try your best to dismiss them as "learning experiences", but then you can cause any harm to someone else in the name of "learning experiences", but you most likely would not do that. Rather, unnecessary harm is unnecessary harm. — schopenhauer1
You have been knocked out so many times you are punchy and stuck in repeat BS mode. — universeness
1) “This is, I believe, a new argument for antinatalism.
To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent.”
- Having done nothing neither makes someone ‘innocent’ nor ‘guilty’. It is irrelevant. — I like sushi
2) “An innocent person deserves to come to no harm. Thus any harm - any harm whatever - that this person comes to, is undeserved.”
- You have failed to explain this. If your position is that an innocent person deserves no harm but that is what innocent means then you have no argument. You are just stating something and expecting people to follow. — I like sushi
3) “Furthermore, an innocent person positively deserves a happy life.”
- Unsubstantiated claim. — I like sushi
5) “This world clearly does not offer such a life to anyone. We all know this.”
- We know this because life without any degree of ‘harm’ whatsoever is not ‘life’. Life requires learning and learning is always, at some stage, a hardship. — I like sushi
6) “It is wrong, then, to create an innocent person when one knows full well that one cannot give this person what they deserve: a happy, harm free life. To procreate is to create a huge injustice. It is to create a debt that you know you can't pay.”
- None of this follow as you are riding on too many unsubstantiated claims and poorly sketched out terms. — I like sushi
Perhaps you should read up on how asexuality works! — universeness
Nonsense, as for many it would not merely 'frustrate one's preference,' it would prevent them from fulfilling a deeply held natural compulsion — universeness
You just handwave this suffering away which reveals you as a hypocrite who does not care about the suffering of others if their suffering does not fit the skewed logic you use to promote your morose antinatalist viewpoint. — universeness
More nonesense, all of life, is NOT going to have harms. When you take a painkiller your pain reduces, it does not get worse. Do all medicines do harm in your skewed world? Antinatalism is an unnecessary harm it causes many many harms. You, therefore, advocate for harming others by suggesting that no one deserves children despite reproduction being a strong natural dictate for the survival of any species. — universeness
Your antinatalism is vile but harmless and will only ever gain any credence among the fringefreaks in society. — universeness
Yeah, right. You really hurt me when you smashed your face onto my knee and then repeatedly hit my foot with your crotch. Good technique! — Bartricks
Dude, you should know basic definitions before you make a fool of yourself: "Procreation- the production of offspring; reproduction".
Reproduction can be asexual or sexual. — schopenhauer1
It's arguable that it is a "compulsion" — schopenhauer1
Again, unnecessarily harming people is always wrong. — schopenhauer1
Right back at you DUDE! Asexual reproduction does not require procreation with a mate so advising a creature that does not reproduce through sex, not to reproduce shows your ignorance.
Asexual reproduction happens through parthenogenesis, there is no choice for the parent involved DUDE. — universeness
If we met a sentient asexual alien species who suffered in the same way as humans do. What would your antinatalist advice be for them?
No it's not! For many humans it is the biggest imperative in their existence. I know that for you, this is just another of those pesky, inconvenient biological facts, that debunks your confused antinatalism. — universeness
The entire animal kingdom demonstrates how strong the reproductive imperative is every single year and we are a member of the processes that produced all other life species on the Earth.
You attempt to handwave away all of that rigorous scientific biological truth with the claim that 'human reproductive urges are no more than insignificant whims, similar to an urge for some chocolate.' You are peddling BS bottles of Dr schopenhauer1 or bottles of batshit crazy batricks as the elixir to solve the problem of human suffering. :rofl: You could make a good comedy duo but not a valid argument. — universeness
You have been given many examples. — universeness
Don't touch things that are too hot because such will cause you harm. Receiving pain from something which is too hot is not an unnecessary harm, but it is a harm regardless of your status as an innocent. — universeness
Your dimwitted antinatalism offers the solution 'well if you are not born then you cannot burn your skin and experience that suffering.' How seriously dumb is that? — universeness
In that way you might become useful to human society instead of a complete waste of DNA — universeness
We are short of many good species like panda bears we are not short of misanthropic humans like you. — universeness
Note, every claim I have made is true — Bartricks
Perhaps from the 'thought experiment' of a sentient species that reproduces asexually and has no natural control over the process but still 'suffers' in life in the exact same way humans do, would help you see how shallow your antinatalism is. The fact that humans procreate sexually is a biological happenstance and therefore the origin of procreation through sex had no moral driver (as I have now stated many times.)I would simply consider that an unfortunate situation, and not a moral one because they can't have a choice in the matter. What do you think I would say? — schopenhauer1
So by your logic, would you stop a lion from eating a human? If your answer is yes then why do you feel differently when its a lamb getting eaten by the lion? Does the lamb not suffer?A lion eating its prey can't deliberate on it, so it is amoral. It is unfortunate for the prey getting eaten at that particular time though, nonetheless — schopenhauer1
it's a better look. — schopenhauer1
You have not overcome the argument that to conflate THIS preference with instinct is pseudo-scientific misconception. — schopenhauer1
Unnecessary harm here has been explained earlier. It has to follow criteria like: — schopenhauer1
It's always morality about what the parents do, not the child born. — schopenhauer1
I refer you to philosopher David Benatar's asymmetry argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Benatar — schopenhauer1
Antinatalism is a vile viewpoint. I offer no apology for any insult I have so far typed regarding your attempt to peddle it as valid. I think antinatalism is dimwitted and cowardly, that does not mean you are a complete dimwit and a total coward, just sometimes and only in my opinion based on your typings.like you need the theatrics of "you dimwit" and "coward" and things like this.. — schopenhauer1
Two political sides just insulting each other is not debating the policies at hand. We've all seen examples of constructive debate and something that resembles a debate but was just a way to insult the other side. — schopenhauer1
The fact that humans procreate sexually is a biological happenstance and therefore the origin of procreation through sex had no moral driver (as I have now stated many times.) — universeness
Human procreation is not the source of all human suffering as humans were produced by processes with a time span of 13.8 billion years. If you advocate for terminating that process then you are negating every process which naturally occurred within that 13.8 billion years to produce humans and your sole, tiny little reason is human suffering. You are unable to see how ridiculous your reasoning and your suggestion is. Humans are capable of reducing the more heinous forms of human suffering if misanthropes like you give us a chance to. Meantime try to help out rather than add to the suffering by typing the BS you type. — universeness
So by your logic, would you stop a lion from eating a human? If your answer is yes then why do you feel differently when its a lamb getting eaten by the lion? Does the lamb not suffer?
Does your morality about suffering flex quite a bit depending on which creatures are involved?
Animals suffer, would you not prefer your antinatalism to free them from their horrific sufferings? — universeness
I think your viewpoints are illogical so I am hardly likely to pay attention to your opinions of what is 'a better look.' — universeness
Nonsense, You claim I have not 'overcome' your shallow arguments, I say I have. Others will judge. I am not interested in a panto exchange with your ridiculous non-scientific claims. — universeness
You use sweeping unscientific generalisation constantly, so you have demonstrated no ability to posit balanced arguments. — universeness
You handwave away biological fact such as the reproductive imperative and try to convince others that the reproductive imperative in humans is no more powerful than mere whim.
That handwaving alone is enough evidence to condemn you as a pure sophist who is trying to peddle BS to avoid admitting that your antinatalism is based on limited illogical shallow thinking on your part. — universeness
There is no morality regarding a child before it is born. That which does not exist cannot have any moral aspect to it. This has been pointed out to you by many posters. This has not penetrated your foggy thinking yet! — universeness
He had to be born to make his argument, did he not? Just like you had to be born to make your dimwitted antinatalist arguments! — universeness
Just opinion, not an argument.Antinatalism is a vile viewpoint. — universeness
I offer no apology for any insult I have so far typed regarding your attempt to peddle it as valid. I think antinatalism is dimwitted and cowardly, that does not mean you are a complete dimwit and a total coward, just sometimes and only in my opinion based on your typings.
I am sure your opinion of me is not a flattering one. I don't care if you choose to express your disdain in the same way as I do or not. I leave it to the site moderators to raise a concern with me if they have any. — universeness
I think your antinatalist arguments have been debunked and you are the one displaying the sour grapes. — universeness
If you are a little timmy timid and you cant take any insults then perhaps you are correct and you should not respond to me anymore as you are perhaps too precious to not suffer due to your perception of my discourteous approach to your 'dialogue.' — universeness
The question at hand is the moral question of what can deliberated upon regarding suffering, not the origin of "human suffering" in general. — schopenhauer1
Human murder cannot occur if humans did not evolve Sherlock!t's similar to attributing a murder to human evolution or compassionate act to human evolution. — schopenhauer1
the argument is not valid or invalid because you think I'm a misanthrope or you have prescriptions for me. — schopenhauer1
I see animal upon animal suffering as different precisely because it is non-deliberative actions. — schopenhauer1
I presented to you a claim and you have yet to address it, — schopenhauer1
Genetic fallacy and avoiding the issue- you don't like the source (me), so it must be wrong. But it's true, ad homs are considered not legitimate in good faith argumentation, because they detract from the argument. They are an act of desperation or embellishment, or appeals to emotion from the proverbial "crowd", or meant to throw someone off by making them angry or hurting their feelings — schopenhauer1
Again, I see no scientific claim for your reproductive imperative. If it is so pervasive in scientific literature, show me the overwhelming evidence that this exists. — schopenhauer1
things that aren't present but can definitely happen in the future based on my actions (procreation). — schopenhauer1
Indeed, this is the kind of behavior unnecessary in a philosophy forum and leads to unnecessary and incessant trolling. — schopenhauer1
Just stop being an asshole and argue your point. Otherwise you are right, you are not worth debating bedirectlycause most of it is rhetorical blather. — schopenhauer1
Rather, I am refuting that the actual idea of "I want a baby/I want to reproduce" is an instinct. — schopenhauer1
Morality obtains when the conditions are around for morality to be in play. — schopenhauer1
natalists will be hunted down and hanged from the nearest tree for being part of the "conspiracy" to cause unimaginable human suffering by encouraging and precipitating a population explosion that exceeds the Earth's carrying capacity. — Agent Smith
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.