I hope you become more positive in your predictions of the future of our species.
You might be a happier person if you tackle your hopelessness in new ways.
Another hour will still pass, regardless of your decision to live through it with despair as your main companion or hope. Choose life, don't see life as a curse because despair will become all you are or ever will be. — universeness

I'm being realistic mon ami! You, on the other hand, don't seem to realize the full import of your statements - they're dangerous and you should be censored for the sake of our collective well-being! :snicker:

Well that just shows the wisdom of not giving you any censorship power.
My hope for your move away from accepting hour after hour of despair persists.
Misery loves company and you can find plenty of fellow desperados if you seek them out.
Btw I am also in earnest. I don't find any value in trying to embellish with French phrases but whatever floats your boat I suppose.

:lol:

Antinatalism should be renamed as probeautitudonism and then perhaps it'll begin to make sense to natalists.

probeautitudonism! You heard it here first folks!!
It has the word 'tit' in it so perhaps it will be a hit for antinatalists. What does it mean you crazy druid? :joke:

On second thoughts, the fact it has the word 'tit' in it might put the antinatalists off as such words may invoke their natural instinctive imperative to procreate! :scream:

:blush:

because they cannot be born innocent if they are never born — universeness

Um, that doesn't mean that you then put them in a situation of harm so that they can be in a situation whereby the offense can take place :roll:. I don't create an injustice so that injustice can be a "thing" for which I can violate.

Your arguments regarding your conflated criteria for 'unnecessary harms' are utterly subjective and on a case-by-case basis, far too complicated and nuanced to be used as an argument for such a blunt dimwitted solution as antinatalism. — universeness

You don't handle nuance well it seems, as you admit right here, so perhaps you shouldn't even touch that one as it might overcomplicate your mind. It's already been spewing out a lot of poorly worked out objections (if that's what they are).

A forest fire could be labeled an unnecessary harm but after the fire, a lot of new growth occurs. — universeness

For some reason you misapply moral decisions with natural occurrences. Unnecessary harms are obviously related to morality here. Just like the animal analogy you poorly used, this one doesn't work either. Rather, if YOU (someone) did something to another person to cause harm unnecessarily, that is what I am talking about. The context is ethics. Keep with it.

As I have told you many times your thinking is too shallow. You deserve every insult thrown at you as you will not accept scientific fact, you will still try to blunderbuss your way through because you are incapable of admitting you are completely wrong. You are a prideful idiot. — universeness

This is just stuff being said. You have not shown the supposedly overwhelming evidence for your claim about the IDEA of "I want a baby/I want to procreate" being an instinct.

Um, that doesn't mean that you then put them in a situation of harm so that they can be in a situation whereby the offense can take place — schopenhauer1

Um Pocahontas, you suggest that they are in a situation of harm due to their birth and that there exists an intent behind that, which is BS. There is no such intent on the part of the parents or the universe. Misfortune can occur which the majority of parents will try to protect against. You claim their efforts are in vain and you suggest not being born at all is the only protection against 'harm,' which makes you an idiot in my view.
I recall member DA671 making great effort to get through your foggy thinking. He blew your shallow thinking out of the water and you simply could not handle it. Your pathetic petted lip was present in almost every tedious response you made to his posts regarding your antinatalism.
You did not learn then and you are not learning now because you seem to want to remain the fool on the hill.

I don't create an injustice so that injustice can be a "thing" for which I can violate. — schopenhauer1

Antinatalism is not a justified solution to the issue of human suffering so you advocate for injustice every time you propose antinatalism as the solution. You can run round and round your little hamster wheel as much as you like, you will still generate no power for your debunked arguments.

You don't handle nuance well it seems, as you admit right here, so perhaps you shouldn't even touch that one as it might overcomplicate your mind. It's already been spewing out a lot of poorly worked out objections (if that's what they are) — schopenhauer1

Is that your best fighting talk? What a powderpuff attack!

if YOU (someone) did something to another person to cause harm unnecessarily, that is what I am talking about. — schopenhauer1

I am perfectly aware that this is your one trick pony but it's already been destroyed. If I harm others it is either deliberate, accidental or unintended consequential so not ever 'unnecessary,' such a term is only applicable to those who decide to judge and such judgements can be utterly rejected on an individual basis so it is completely subjective and AGAIN TOO WEAK to use as a justification for something as extreme and ridiculous as antinatalism. But I know you don't care about such truths you are too busy trying to stay on your hamster wheel.

For some reason you misapply moral decisions with natural occurrences. — schopenhauer1

No, the problem is that your shallow thinking cannot perceive the relationships between them.

You have not shown the supposedly overwhelming evidence for your claim about the IDEA of "I want a baby/I want to procreate" being an instinct. — schopenhauer1

I told you already, I am not willing to re-educate you. Read some books about the powerful instinct to reproduce imprinted on all species by nature. If you won't accept the evolutionary/natural selection evidence or the behavioural evidence from observation past and present then your intellect is impotent.
Probably why you are so easily duped by dimwitted ideas like antinatalism.

One does not have the right to impose a lifetime of injustice on another person just because you want to have a little baby to look after. — Bartricks

But what do you make of the _fact_ that people are able to do so and do it?

How can we intelligibly talk about the _right_ to have children, when there is no instance that would grant or revoke that right; instead, people just do as they please (and many do have children)?

If you can do something (ie. if you're able to do something), this is already an indication that the universe works in such a way as to grant you that, ie. it gives you that "right". It is in the case of you wouldn't be able to do something that the question of whether you have the right to or not can be brought up.

To procreate is to create an innocent person. They haven't done anything yet. So they're innocent. — Bartricks

The problem with the innocence of infants is that it doesn't last, it's corruptible, inherently so. It's not innocence proper, one that would last.
For your argument to work, the person would need to remain innocent, be incorruptible. Corruptible people get what they deserve.

The view that it is wrong to procreate is not the view that no one procreate. It is normative: a view about how ought to behave, not a view about how we do behave

First, to lose innocence one needs free will and sufficient reason responsiveness. As the latter develops much later all the harms suffered in childhood are undeserved. Second, one is not entitled to assume later wrongdoing will occur. Third, even if it will occur, and occur to a degree that all subsequent harms are deserved, then this just compounds the case for antinatalism, for one should not create wrongdoers, other things being equal

Um Pocahontas, you suggest that they are in a situation of harm due to their birth and that there exists an intent behind that, which is BS. There is no such intent on the part of the parents or the universe. — universeness

Category error.. the universe of course can never have intent so a moot point.
I also never said the parents had such intent. YOU however, made the poor argument such that "If the person for which an injustice is to take place doesn't exist (yet), it is okay to cause the person to exist (otherwise there would be no injustice). I was explaining the error of this logic.

I recall member DA671 making great effort to get through your foggy thinking. He blew your shallow thinking out of the water and you simply could not handle it. Your pathetic petted lip was present in almost every tedious response you made to his posts regarding your antinatalism. — universeness

Rhetorical blather, as usual from you.

Antinatalism is not a justified solution to the issue of human suffering so you advocate for injustice every time you propose antinatalism as the solution. You can run round and round your little hamster wheel as much as you like, you will still generate no power for your debunked arguments. — universeness

You speak like you have authority. It is indeed a hamster wheel to debate someone as yourself, I agree though.

Is that your best fighting talk? What a powderpuff attack! — universeness

I don't "need" fighting talk. I simply argue the case. Just unnecessary BS that you surround bad arguments with. I get why you might need to though yourself. You continue to poison the well.

If I harm others it is either deliberate, accidental or unintended consequential so not ever 'unnecessary,' such a term is only applicable to those who decide to judge and such judgements can be utterly rejected on an individual basis so it is completely subjective and AGAIN TOO WEAK to use as a justification for something as extreme and ridiculous as antinatalism. — universeness

Ethics is never fully agreed upon, so saying, "Not everyone agrees on X (abortion, eating meat, having children, business practices, etc. etc.)" is simply the nature of ethics, so this is pretending my case is any different because of your particular loathing of it.

But this judgement is made by the criteria that it seems morally wrong to choose for others what harms are acceptable to endure. If we knew that upon immediate birth every baby would be tortured, clearly we would think that act of putting someone in that situation is cruel and wrong. Just because "life itself" isn't an immediate clear torture, doesn't mean that the cumulative amount of harm that someone else will encounter in life is acceptable to create. You would like there to be special pleading due to your indignity and mantle of authority you take on.

No, the problem is that your shallow thinking cannot perceive the relationships between them. — universeness

Not at all. It is simply a category error I am pointing out. You're trying to make a distinction that makes no difference. It's like when someone says, "This isn't a natural source", and the other person says, "Even man-made things are natural because all matter is natural". There is definitely a distinction between human deliberative phenomena and phenomena that is not based on human deliberation. A lion eating another lion, or the mating instincts in most other animals are or liken to natural occurrences, not deliberative acts. And certainly the same as naturally occurring forest fires or whatever other natural occurrence you used.

I think my argument from overpopulation for antinatalism can be refuted with math.

Suppose there are only 2 cells (x, y) reproducing via mitosis. If the lifespan of a cell is t seconds and lineage x divides every m seconds and lineage y divides every n seconds such that m $\neq$ n. I'm sure a mathematician @jgill can work out what the values of t, m, n should be such that the total population of cells remain constant throughout. There's gotta be a formula at the very least.

Perhaps we should do the right thing and offer people the choice - natalism/antinatalism - and let the chips fall where they may. Last I checked, procreation is an adult affair i.e. those who must think this through are autonomous agents, fully capable of making their own decisions. Why speak for someone who can speak for him/herself, oui? We must act, in this case, as the media do - inform (only) and let the audience make up their own minds.

Perhaps we should do the right thing and offer people the choice - natalism/antinatalism - and let the chips fall where they may. — Agent Smith

:up: :100:

We are free to choose whether natalism or antinatalism since the moment children are no longer that important to maintain familiar economy!

Let's not waste our time and get straight to the point, eh?

Let's not waste our time — Agent Smith

What?

What? — javi2541997

:brow:

I see what you did there, Bartricks!

Bartricks, forgive them. They know not what they (natalists) do!

This is the kind of ridiculous, seriously f***** up, BS your musings conclude! How low do you go you idiot. — universeness

Because you continue to debate in this manner, I'm done. You've proven you're not worth the time to debate and this kind of hostility is arguing out of bad faith. Argument by insult is not philosophy. Shouldn't even be allowed on this forum actually.

I see you're not a fan of Trump and politicians like him. I am in agreement with you on that. However, these are exactly the kind of cry-baby like antics they do when dealing with people they disagree with.

An innocent person also deserves happiness and fulfillment, which the world offers, would you deny them this?

Sophmoric argument.

Your vile antinatalism should not be allowed on this forum imo.
Go back and read your exchanges with @DA671. Keep reading them until his logic finally lifts the vile fog of antinatalism from your sad life. He is a much friendlier human being than I and he was able to tolerate the BS you type without losing his patience. Your antinatalism just bores me now. You are a little lost child.

Go back and read your exchanges with DA671 — universeness

Are you like his Shadow in Jungian terms? You’re the same person Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde situation? :lol:.

Keep reading them until his logic finally lifts the vile fog of antinatalism from your sad life. He is a much friendlier human being than I and he was able to tolerate the BS you type without losing his patience. — universeness

Yep maybe you are his Mr. Hyde, or just a groupie.

Your antinatalism just bores me now. You are a little lost child. — universeness

I’m not here to bore or not bore you. Don’t reply or comment if you don’t have anything of substance to say about the subject, which you continually show, you don’t.

Don’t reply or comment if you don’t have anything of substance to say about the subject, which you continually show, you don’t — schopenhauer1

I will reply or comment whenever I like. I have debunked your antinatalist viewpoint and will continue to do so, but you are mostly white noise now as you just engage in denial of truths. As an empty vessel, you will no doubt continue to make loud noises but I will leave you with your ever-decreasing circles.

I will leave you with your ever-decreasing circles. — universeness

You are delusional. I don’t care about circles. You’re not on a mission. You’re not a white knight. Lay off the drugs (but do take your meds). Switch to decaf.

Did you type anything significant there? I tried to read it but all that came through was hisssssssssssss and crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Just keep reading your exchange with @DA671 He can save you!! :smile:

Just keep reading your exchange with DA671 He can save you!! :smile: — universeness

Ah maybe a sock puppet then

Ah maybe a sock puppet then — schopenhauer1

It's your hand, you may put it inside any sock you fancy!
Hssssssssssss, crrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, bye!

The view that it is wrong to procreate is not the view that no one procreate. It is normative: a view about how ought to behave, not a view about how we do behave — Bartricks

I'm asking you what you make of the fact that people are able to procreate (some people, at least; the ability to procreate is not a given).
What moral implications does this fact have, according to you?