By your reasoning, any system with 'restrictions' (i.e. all of them) lead directly to totalitarianism. — Shevek

I've not suggested that there be a democracy without a constitution of sorts to designate the powers of government, and I've also not suggested that the creation of one would necessarily lead to totalitarianism. It's not as if I wasn't aware that there are many countries (most notably the US where I live) that are democracies and that also have constitutions that designate the role of government.

The distinction is that a Marxist government would have to set forth Marxist principles within its constitution and it would necessarily begin with the notion that the state (or community, or whatever you wish to call the collective) maintains some level of supremacy over the individual. It is that notion that leads to the totalitarianism that is characteristic of every state that considers itself Marxist. Such places have never been bastions of individual rights. And so when the proletariat votes, should it vote for anything over the subjugation of the person to the collective, then it has redefined it's god.

You're obviously coming from a place of ignorance when you purport to have figured out everything wrong with Marx's arguments. Have you even read Marx, let alone tried to extend the least bit of charitability in trying to understand his arguments? Attacking strawmen gets tiring, and it is quite unfortunate because I'd really like to hear intelligent criticisms of Marx from perspectives that know what he's talking about. I don't believe everything Marx says, but I try to understand what he says before evaluating it. — Shevek

You miss my perspective is all. You can read Marx as a philosopher or you can read him as a politician. The former leaves us having all sorts of heady discussions about alternative ways to structure our society, and perhaps we can talk about revolutions and bringing down the oppressive structures so prevalent in our society (despite the fact that the oppressive structures in non-Marxist countries are child's play when compared to those in Marxist countries). The latter leaves us with a very different discussion. We stop caring about theories, hypotheticals, and endless debates in smoke filled rooms. We simply ask: does this work? It seems not to. You've built a hell of a mousetrap, but it just doesn't catch mice.

So, sure, I could go about discussing Marx like many discuss Descartes (for example). Interesting stuff with a massive academic history that really doesn't matter outside of academic settings. That, though, isn't why he's being discussed. You guys are discussing him like he ought to matter outside of academia.

Once people ride in machines and not on their own feet or on the feet of horses, that transformation is finished. Even if future cars rest on anti-gravity devices instead of wheels, it's a refinement, not a revolution. — Bitter Crank

There's no distinction between revolution and refinement. I'd say it was as much a refinement when the first guy was able to tame a horse enough to ride it as it was a refinement to move to a horse driven buggy and then another refinement to the horseless carriage. You could also call each of those revolutions.

I also question anyone who says that human ingenuity has largely run its course. When I was a kid, we had a complex network of cans and kite strings to communicate and now we have rotary phones hanging from our walls that enable us to contact our friends from across the country (but be sure to call at night when the rates are lower).

The 'dictatorship of the proletariat' is supposed to designate such a system, in which total political power emanates from democratic worker councils and governmental/inter-local institutions are meant largely as coordinating bodies for carrying out decisions coming from them. — Shevek

There would have to be a limitation placed on such a democracy which would require that it adhere to the principle that each must contribute to the best of their ability and each is entitled to his fair share. That is, you can't just assert there will be an open democracy with each voting his individual conscience for whatever he wants, else there most certainly will be some group of people who will vote for privatization and capitalism. which would defeat the whole point of enterprise. In fact, I'd expect that no rule could be passed (even should it emanate from the worker's council) that does not require certain behavior consistent with working for the collective. Those restrictions placed on democracy are what will (and has) led to totalitarianism within communist systems.

Of course we can all make criticisms of Marx and update it to more contemporary conditions. — Shevek

Or we can simply finally recognize that Marxism is an unworkable theory in practice and that constant efforts to explain how it might work make it a meaningless tautology where it's just true that if we all live together as one, we'll be happy.

If it was just the homeless or just food insufficiency, voluntary efforts could conceivably solve the problem. — Bitter Crank

Well, I've not argued for the Randian wet dream of complete government elimination of all services with the expectation of private enterprise replacement of those services. The spectrum runs from radical rightest Libertarianism to absolute communism with no retention of private capital, with me obviously fading toward the right and you being more left than I am right (as you are a self-avowed Marxist).

The point being that I favor some taxation (which is already progressive in nature) and government services, and I believe that what we currently have adequately provides the basic services. The concern that I'm hearing in this thread is that those dreaded 1 percenters have too much money and should do more to help their fellow citizens (1) out of a sense of general fairness, and (2) because there are many who need more help than the government is currently willing or able to provide. My position is that (1) fairness dictates that those who have earned their money should keep their money, and (2) private supplementation can better address many of the problems related to poverty.

I then went on to say that since private donations of money and time do make a real difference to the problems facing us, it might make sense for all you bleeding hearts to contribute (if you aren't already) instead of just griping about how the rich should be forced to come down from their penthouses to save us.

No, the idea of government redistribution of wealth (as opposed to a charitable distribution) seems to be a contemporary secular concept. — Bitter Crank

This is a complicated question that might be the subject of a dissertation.

The earliest forms of government redistribution were referred to as a palace economy, which dates back to the Bronze Age. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palace_economy . The absolute ruler would receive wealth from the people and would then redistribute it out based upon special privilege or in order to invest for more wealth for the ruler. The notion of "each according to need" came a long time later obviously, but I'd assume was an outgrowth of modern democracy, where the needs of the people generally predominated over a particular ruler's needs. Generally rulers do seize money, but they keep it for themselves, although I'm sure Kings and Queens have from time to time distributed their wealth for some benevolent purpose, however sporadic it might have been.

In looking to ancient Jewish culture, charity was required by God (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tzedakah), but not by any person with secular power to enforce the rule. You gave charity to avoid the harsh judgment imposed by God. Deut 11:22-32. It was also considered a social norm. https://books.google.com/books?id=s3VnyvPlVb4C&pg=PA7&lpg=PA7&dq=how+was+charity+required+in+ancient+israel&source=bl&ots=0c8mYP1wUO&sig=1DSi-v5lPblxjb_bayO40acF1f0&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiT7seUtYTLAhXDMyYKHR_LCIgQ6AEISzAI#v=onepage&q=how%20was%20charity%20required%20in%20ancient%20israel&f=false.

There was also the requirement to tithe, which is today understood as a requirement to give 10% of your income to charity. This is a bit of a corruption of the actual rule, which was actually that farmers were required to give 10% of their annual crops and livestock to the Levites (the priests) because the Levites had no land and no way to produce their own food. The rule really wasn't meant to feed the poor, but was required to sustain the structure of the society. With the destruction of the second temple, that rule was abolished, as were all laws related to sacrifice and priestly rites.

My point here is only to say that there have been many instances in history where money was provided to some central entity and that entity then gave that money back to the rank and file. How it was seized (whether by force, fear of God, or by social expectations) varied, and how it was redistributed varied (by special privilege, through investment concerns, or to assist the most needy) also varied.

My position therefore isn't that charity or taxation or redistribution is a bad thing per se, but it is to say that there are all sorts of forms, with me favoring a more voluntary system imposed by social norms and a distribution to those truly in need. It's for that reason that I keep asking "what have you done to correct the problem"? That is, there should be a social expectation that everyone fix this problem, not just a demand that those who have enough extra stuff to just give it up. Such a demand is especially difficult to accept from those who refuse to accept the social norm that they get out and help those in need. As I see it, we're an army of millions of people fully capable of resolving this problem, but instead we turn on each other and point to others and ask why they're not doing enough.

Much of what you said I agree with. The ethical imperative of charity is not unique to Christianity and it largely explains why the religious (who are more often on the right of the political spectrum) are more charitable than their counterparts.

I think you have to make a leap, though, to suggest that Christianity suggests that the government is properly empowered by God to seize assets of the rich and to redistribute them. I'm generally opposed to any attempt to equate political positions to religious positions. Your post hints at "God is on the Democrats' side," which is as dangerous as saying God favors the Republicans (which is no doubt preached in certain churches). That seemed to be what was intimated in your post, but I could have over-read it.

I also am aware that Protestantism rejects the notion that good acts are necessary for salvation, which was a response to the Catholic Church's prior rules requiring payment of money to the church in order to be saved. There was a certain enlightenment associated with this reformation, as it eliminated the Church's control over who might get into heaven and thus put such matters solely in the power of the faithful. I find that change enlightened because it did exactly what it was intended, it kept folks from demanding things or acts in order to be right before God, and to some extent it puts an end to your suggestion that proper Christians must favor a particular political view. That is, it is not required that the rich help the poor for them to be good people as long as they keep the faith.

Where I might add to the Protestant view is that I can accept that salvation might be achieved through faith alone, but I am going to be highly suspect of anyone's declaration of faith if there is no corresponding good behavior that accompanies it. If you care so deeply for the poor, it would be an odd way of showing it if you never did anything caring for them.

If you prioritise increasing profit over contributing to a good cause, then you have questionable morals — Sapientia

Why? I think that characterizes most people at a basic level. We first care about ourselves, then about others. I'd say the immoral person is the one who does not care about others at any level.

An aim, like a desire, doesn't necessitate action, but it doesn't have the same meaning as the latter, so you can't reduce the former to the latter. — Sapientia

Alright, you meant aim, not want, but I think we're using it the same way here, which is just to want things to change, but not necessarily to do anything about it.

How, may I ask, do you know that I've done nothing? Or is that just an assumption? Do you know what they say about those who assume?

Even if I have done nothing, I would just accept your charge of hypocrisy. It's an irrelevant ad hominem. — Sapientia

You may be a philanthropist as far as I know. My point is very different from yours despite that I may have engaged in an irrelevant attack on your integrity. My point is that there is nothing moral about wanting things to be good if you do nothing good and there is something moral about wanting things to be bad as long as you make things good. This dispensing of the requirement that you actually try to make things better is what I'm objecting to.

I'd also point out that your argument was in fact that you objected to certain good deeds because you felt it would result in the rich being absolved of their duty to help the poor. That is, you were actually arguing that it was bad to do what appeared to be good, so if you do in fact do good deeds for the poor, you're not just a hypocrite, you're a bad person under your definition of what it is to be good.

Is that what a partner in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty would do, or is that just what a self-interested profiteer would do? — Sapientia

Who cares as long as poverty is reduced? Would a homeless person really care if his bagged meal was in generic paper or in one with a Nike swoosh?

False dilemma. I'll go with option 3: aim to change things for the better, so that the power isn't in the hands of Wells Fargo and others like them. — Sapientia

By "aim" I suppose you mean "want," because as I've pointed out, you've done nothing. How does wanting change trump going out and helping others?

No, my primarily ethical duty would be to put right the wrong, rather than maintain it, and compensating for the inadequacy of the rich would maintain that wrong. So I would instead advocate revolutionary action. — Sapientia

Well that sure is the laziest solution. You can't help the poor because if you do then your government representatives won't force the rich to help the poor, but the rich won't be forced because they control the whole enterprise, so the poor will remain poor, even though you could have done something to help them. I'm sure the poor appreciate your integrity in not helping them and they admire your philosophizing from your armchair.

Should I encourage others not to help the poor so that I can create such a horrible situation that my government might finally act? Suppose my representatives don't act, but they instead interpret everyone's refusal to help the poor as evidence that their constituency doesn't care about the poor? That might be a logical conclusion, as opposed to their thinking that the reason their constituency doesn't help the poor is actually because they care so much they refuse to help in the hopes the poor end up getting help. While it's physically lazy, the mental gymnastics are strenuous.

I view any corporations and wealthy people as partners in the effort to resolve the problem of poverty who I believe are genuinely attempting to resolve the problem. But that, in itself, is not sufficient. They might have the wrong idea about the best way in which to resolve the problem. — Sapientia

And yet another reason not to help out. Nothing like throwing down the moral gauntlet and refusing to do anything that is beneath you, all the while when there's someone suffering.

So here's how it works: Wells Fargo Bank decides to team up with the American Cancer Society to raise funds to help treat cancer. As you might know, Wells Fargo really isn't in the cancer treating business, but they're in the banking business. What they really want is to profit from selling banking products, and they're using the ACS as a vehicle to make more money. Shocking, I know.

So, you have 2 choices, work with Wells Fargo and see to it that more people are treated for cancer or sit back in your chair and bitch about it. I suppose you'll take option 2, considering that requires no effort on your part.

Edit: From their website: "The American Cancer Society gratefully acknowledges those many corporations who actively support its mission to save more lives from cancer and create a world with more birthdays. In 2014 corporate contributions accounted for approximately $85,173,147.00."

Rather than buy an expensive yacht, donate that money to charity. Still left with billions of dollars in the bank and a large collection of extremely valuable assets? Then sacrificing the addition of a new yacht to your collection was not enough. Don't want to do more? Ok, then, I guess that's your prerogative. On second thought, that's rubbish. If you won't do more, then that superfluous wealth should be forcibly taken from you and redistributed. — Sapientia

Sure, and we can have a committee that oversees his bank account and governs all the money that he earns to determine what is and isn't a frivolous expenditure. I'm sure that wouldn't disincentivize anyone from making money and we'd see an explosion in productivity.

You continue to ignore that the rich already are paying disproportionately and it already is their contributions that are building public housing, education, welfare, health care, etc. You're just demanding that they pay more and for some reason you think folks shouldn't own yachts. Do you suppose someone might lose their job if they shut down the shipyards after you outlaw yachts?

And you also ignore my plea that you go out into your community and make it a better place as opposed to complaining about the rich bastards out there. Let's assume the world is unfair and that the rich are being relieved of their duty to make the world a better place all as the result of their ability to manipulate the law. It would seem if that were the case then your ethical duty to compensate for the rich's inadequacy would be increased. It's not like you can turn to the poor and tell them you can't help them because that is the job of the rich, and so sorry if they are failing.

I just find the moralizing a bit hypocritical. The rich need to do more, but I am justified in doing next to nothing? I daresay that if you actually committed your free time to resolving these problems, you wouldn't waste your time complaining and you might even see corporations and wealthy people as partners in your efforts. And if you were pulling your weight in regard to solving the problems, you would at least stand on the firm ground of your example when you demanded more from others. And by "others," I mean everyone, rich and poor.

@Sapientia The rich already are paying a disproportionate share towards helping the poor. As I've cited many times before, conservatives give more toward charity than liberals on average and the wealthy provide far more tax revenues than the poor. You may wish to argue they should pay more, but you can't argue that they are paying less than everyone else.

My comment was pretty simple, and it didn't even suggest the average guy needs to donate more money to charity. I simply said that you have little standing arguing about what other people do if you're just sitting in your chair complaining. Get out and help the homeless if they are your concern. Sign up at your local charity. There is a way to help out others other than by complaining that other people don't help out enough. All this wonderful talk about how we should serve others sounds somewhat hollow when it is followed by a rationalization for why we personally have no obligation to serve others.

If all the complainers would get out and help resolve the problem instead of demanding that others resolve the problems they find so important, then the problems would go a long towards being resolved. I get that you're tired of an unkempt house. Clean it.

The poor dear! After doing whatever he does in well-lit, air conditioned, clean, comfortable surroundings, he get's off the bus after work and what does he see? Suffering humanity! The fucking nerve of these people, displaying their wretchedness where he might see it. maybe smell it. — Bitter Crank

It's a bit of a straw man to suggest that his position has been accepted by any meaningful group, so have at it in defeating it. You're not going to get any push back from me.

I will say, though, that sweeping the homeless from public spaces is a general tactic used in large cities, many of which are run by Democrats. We don't argue that it's being done because we're disgusted by them, but we instead make arguments related to crime and the annoyance of panhandling. It's also pretty clear that the homeless problem is more related to addiction and psychological issues than it is to a failed economic system.

It seems fairly irrelevant to me whether one group wants the homeless out because they stink and another because they hurt business and another because they think they're annoying. It also seems irrelevant to me whether some see the homeless as regular folks who have stumbled and others as failures. It's not what you think in your heart; it's what you do with your hands. So, if you care, go feed the homeless, assist in a shelter, donate money, do whatever. Telling folks how much you care and condemning those who you think don't care doesn't matter a whole lot to a homeless guy. I'd imagine you're both the same in his eyes.

So, the super rich and the working class have merit proportional to their status and contribution to society? I don't think so. The super rich are overprivileged, and something ought to be done about that, e.g. redistribution of wealth, higher wages for those at the lower end of the scale, higher taxes for big businesses. — Sapientia

Right, exactly what I thought you thought. You are arguing for equality, but I'm arguing for merit based wealth. To the extent you object that wealth has not been distributed based upon merit, I'll join in your objections. To the extent you simply point out that there is unequal distribution of wealth, I'd be concerned if there were not. I don't observe equal contributions, so I'd be alarmed if there were equal rewards.

in the bowels of bad legislation — Bitter Crank

would be as effective a plug in the rectum of Republican Policy — Bitter Crank

would need a collective colostomy. — Bitter Crank

having a plug free rectum and dumping — Bitter Crank

In need of a good gastroenterologist?

Like the goal of creating a fairer society by, for example, targeting the super rich? Trump is a fat cat that will prioritise the interests of other fat cats if he can get away with it, and he will hinder progress towards such a goal. He is also someone who takes advantage of prejudice, and if that were reflected in policy, then it would have serious detrimental consequences. — Sapientia

We have different definitions of fairness, with yours weighing toward equality and mine merit. That would be my guess if this discussion will follow all others I have had like it.

They're all fat cats, every last one of them, Dem or Republican. Ordinary folks do ordinary things, which doesn't include running for president.

Race baiting is hardly a Republican idea. Both sides play that card, and it's close kin, class warfare, gets played when people start vilifying the rich.

Unfortunately, a Conservative landslide, with David 'pig fucker' Cameron securing another term as Prime Minister. — Sapientia

If one can get elected with such an unfortunate middle name, then I suppose anyone can.

Oh, I know, I was just trying to provoke you. — Baden

Say crude things about your mom. That really pisses me off.

So, does that mean that you think that Trump can be trusted to govern the U.S.A. better than Sanders? Because unless Sanders has said crazier and/or more morally repugnant things than Trump, I trust Sanders over Trump. — Sapientia

I trust that Trump will make better decisions than Sanders, not because either are truly crazy. I just disagree with Sanders on just about everything.

Trump is a genius of sorts. He can say "I'll make the Mexicans build their own wall" and then he'll get billions of dollars in free advertising from CNN and MSNBC when they express their outrage. Meanwhile, the average guy thinks to himself, "yeah, they should pay for their own damn wall" and then he gets more votes. How a real estate investor becomes a celebrity and is able to appeal to the common man is an amazing feat.

Great risks with completely unpredictable results is what makes America great I tell you! Come on over and spin the wheel, see what happens.

I'd vote for Trump over Mr. Magoo and Mr. Magoo over Hillary and Trump over Hillary.

To be fair to Hanover, completely selfish relatively rich people interested in nothing but how much tax they have to pay have plenty to gain from a Trump presidency and plenty to lose from a Sanders one. ;) — Baden

And yet many of his supporters are blue collar Democrats (and Republicans). This old "everyone just votes for self interest" just isn't true. If it were, no wealthy people would vote for Sanders, but they do. People are driven by ideology more than you suggest.

You did actually say any Democrat; not just Sanders - which is even more shocking. And that is precisely what BC addressed in his comment to which you replied with the quote above. — Sapientia

Well, ok, not any Democrat. I suppose if you found me a conservative southern Democrat (like Zell Miller), then I'd vote for Zell even though he's really old now. At his finest: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXSQ5BX6YXg.

But to the question of Trump vs. Sanders, it'd be Trump without question. Mr. Magoo or Sanders, it'd be Mr. Magoo.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar. @Michael recommended it, and although very thick in parts (because the pages were made of sturdy cardboard), I really enjoyed it.

Precedence is useful for guidance but no more than that. — Bitter Crank

I get that the tradition argument is pretext, but so is the argument that Obama was elected, so the Senate must honor his wishes and vote as soon as possible. It is true that the Republicans must suck it up that Obama gets to pick the candidate, but the Dems must suck it up that the Republican Senate gets to decide when (and if) they vote. No one gets to tell the other what to do, and each gets to explain why they can do whatever they want to do, and we the electorate get to decide who we despise more.

As for Trump, I'm disappointed that you would prefer a schlockmeister Trump to any, perhaps very superior, Democrat. — Bitter Crank

I disagree with Sanders on much more than I disagree with Trump, so that's why I'd vote for Trump if I had to choose between those two.

Let's just agree that we're all going to argue in favour of whichever outcome satisfies our principles and personal interests. — Michael

I don't want to find common ground. It only humanizes my opponents and makes their destruction that much more draining.

Favor has no u.

Let's not insult anyone's intelligence by pretending that the Republicans wouldn't try to nominate a conservative justice if they were in Obama's position, and cry foul if the Dems tried to obstruct them (which they probably would). — Baden

Sure, they're both equally inconsistent. There is some tradition, though, about not making lifetime appointments during a lame duck period, so it makes sense that it would be argued. I do agree that the underlying tradition of fair play and civility is a thing of the past, although I wonder if it really ever was.

The GOP has no one but themselves to blame for Trump. — Arkady

There's no more reason to look for blame for the existence of Trump than there is for looking for blame to explain the existence of Sanders or Clinton. I'd vote for Trump over any Democrat. In truth, I see the existence of Sanders as better evidence of the sorry state of affairs than the existence of Trump.

So what? Even if a second presidential term is coming to an end in 10 months, there is PLENTY OF TIME for a nomination, confirmations hearings, and a vote. — Bitter Crank

The argument submitted by the Republicans was that typically Presidents don't appoint Justices in the last year of their term. The Dems responded by saying that the Reagan precedent makes that argument inconsistent. My point is that there really isn't a Reagan precedent because Reagan had been making efforts to appoint a Justice well over a year prior to the end of his term.

Has a decision been reached on what we are to read? I hate when I read the wrong thing because I was only half way paying attention.

Over time, trillions of incorrect quantum binary decisions were made to co-create literally an "upside down" civilization — holofractal

I can't say I followed your post or all the transitions you made from one subject to the next, but I will say that if your position is that civilization is literally upside down, then we are all actually on our heads. I'd say that's literally nuts, as in there are all sorts of nuts on the floor needing sweeping.

If they obstruct, they'll get called on it, and with the Reagan precedent, there's nowhere to hide. — Baden

Reagan nominated Robert Bork in July 1987 and he was rejected by the Senate. He then nominated Douglas Ginsburg who withdrew for personal reasons. Then in November 1987, Kennedy was nominated. The presidential term ends in January.

So, the nomination process actually began for Reagan about a year and a half prior to the end of his term, where this process will begin 10 months prior to the end of the term.

I think the Republicans will try to block whoever is nominated in the hopes that a Republican president will be elected. The Reagan precedent will hold little weight. The country is far more divided now than before and obstruction from both parties is the norm. Also Obama is far less popular than Reagan was.

It's also not like we have to read the tea leaves: "Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell tonight issued this statement: 'The American people should have a voice in the selection of their next Supreme Court Justice. Therefore, this vacancy should not be filled until we have a new President.'”

In terms of party self destruction, did anyone notice that the mid-term elections resulted in historic Republican gains in the House, Senate, state legislatures, and state Governor offices? It took a GW to create an Obama and an Obama to create a Trump.

That's the question I asked. When it comes to maths, doesn't understanding consist in knowing how to manipulate the symbols, or at least knowing what to do with the input (e.g. plot a graph)? — Michael

If one performs mathematical processes without any understanding of the meaning of the symbols or of the reasons behind the processes, then that person would be like the English speaking person in Searle's Chinese Room. You've just restated the thought experiment using math as an example as opposed to the Chinese characters.

The question is whether such examples are akin to what we actually do when we speak and convey our thoughts to other people. I'd say it's pretty dissimilar, considering in the Chinese Room we have no idea what thought we're conveying, but when we say "I'm hungry" (for example) we do.

I don't really see how this is as much a twist on the Chinese Room thought experiment as it is a restatement of it.

I'm sort of wondering of what practical relevance is there in calling one's self a natalist or an anatalist using your definitions?

Let's say a 10 year old girl just loves her dolls and loves everything about little kids, believing that a world filled with kids would be the most wonderful place. Being 10, she obviously cannot engage in any activity that would result in having children, nor would she want to. She is in fact an anatalist using your strained definition. Of what value is it in designating her as such, and how does it help you to put yourself (as a celibate) and those who detest children in the same general class as her?

Then what's anatalism? Because I thought you were defining anatalism as a practical assent to anti-natalism. — Michael

Anatalism can either be the belief that you don't want to there to be kids or it can be the belief that you do want for their to be kids, depending upon whether you define "assent" to me that you agree with the idea that there shouldn't be kids or whether you simply engage in behavior that will lead to their not being kids. A person who hates kids, but who has kids might be an anatalist or might be a natalist, depending upon the definition you happen to be using. The hate kids (thus an anatalist) but had kids (thus a natalist).

It's sort of like I'm a dog, where dogs are defined as people.

They are, practically speaking, anatalist, since they repudiate natalism by their actions, which don't include, by definition, having children. Now, they may still theoretically assent to natalism, or they may not, but this is a different kind of assent. — Thorongil

Here's why your position is nonsense:

1. You wish to redefine "assent" to mean "acts in a way that requires a specific result." What this means that a person who very much wants to have children but can't due to physical or social limitations (the largest group of celibates by far) is an anatalist because he's acting like someone who doesn't want to have children. That would mean he's "assenting" to the anatalist position.

2. This causes a problem because the word "assent" also (and actually) means "expressing approval for." That would mean that the celibate who wants children would be "assenting" to the natalist position.

Obviously #1 and #2 are contradictory. The same person is both a natalist and anatalist. That contradiction can be explained away as being the result of equivocation with the term "assent." In #1 the term is used differently than in #2.

This doesn't solve our problem, though...

A person who engages in wild promiscuous sex can be an anatalist as long as that person uses birth control. That is, you can have all sorts of sex, but by engaging in safe sex, you won't have children. So, every person who uses birth control "assents" (per definition #1) to anatalism.

So, to boil all this down, what you're saying is:

If you don't do what is necessary to have children, then you are acting in a way that requires (i.e. "assents" per definition #1) that no children will be born. That does not mean, however, that you prefer that no children be born (i.e. "assent" per definition #2). All you mean to say is that if you don't have sex, you won't have kids, but you offer no hint about whether that person not having sex wants or doesn't want kids. This means that certain anatalists really want children.

So, we now have two definitions of anatalism:

A. Those who don't want for there to be children.
B. Those who want for there to be children.

As noted, we have two definition of the word "assent" :

1. Behavior that requires a certain result.
2. Belief or agreement.

Let us now break this down and offer the 4 logical definitions of anatalism and the behaviors associated with it:

1A -- Those who behave in a way that there will be no children and who don't want children.
1B -- Those who behave in way that there be no children but who do want children.
2A -- Those who express agreement for the position that there be no children and who don't want children.
2B -- Those who express agreement for the position that there be no children but who want children.

2B is a bit of a problem.

Of course, it seems logical (since we've defined terms every whichaway) that there be a natalist who does not want for there to be children. That would be the person who engages in unprotected sex but who claims to hate children. After all, plenty of folks get pregnant who don't want kids. We could go through all this same analysis using the term "natalism" and list out the logical possibilities.

And on and on and on.

The way to avoid all this mess is to define terms in a realistic and meaningful way, which you've not done. In fact, my thought is that your attempt to redefine the terms was an attempt to save your theory that somehow anatalism and celibacy were related.

2) Many Church Fathers and Christian theologians have not interpreted the command to "be fruitful and multiply" as relating to procreation. — Thorongil

This is an irrelevant aside. Surely you're not suggesting that there is not a single priest who is both celibate and who wants there to be more children in the world. That is all that is required. At any rate, my point was simply that there is nothing illogical about wanting there to be more children in the world and also wanting to be celibate.

This ad hominem is something I would expect a fraternity boy to utter, not someone on a philosophy forum. — Thorongil

And that too is an ad hom, but not terribly insulting, considering I was in fact in a fraternity (shocker I know). I'm not sure why that's a bad thing, unless, of course, you harbor some long term resentment from exclusion.

My point was simply (as I've noted) that your argument was illogical. There is no relationship to celibacy and natalism. You threw in a curious personal factoid about yourself in the OP, and now you complain when I commented on it and offered an alternate explanation for why you weren't having sex.

By analogy: If I told you that I don't bathe because I don't want animals to suffer, you might point out that the two are unrelated and that my lack of hygiene is probably because I'm a slob and not because I really care about the higher purpose of animal happiness. You then might tell me to go take a shower. Then someone else might tell you to stop offering advice because this is a philosophy forum. Then I might tell you to stop being mean because I have the right not to shower. And then we'd be where we are, but the point would remain: showering and animal suffering (just like celibacy and natalism) are not logically related, regardless of how cleverly we throw barbs at one another and regardless of how we sidetrack the issue.

I think the issue that Schopenhauer1 is bringing up is not necessarily that life is always a burden, but rather when analyzed from an objective third person perspective, it could easily be said that each and every one of us live our lives "chasing the cheese", so to speak. It is quite nihilistic and useless. When we take a look at what our lives are constituted by and see just how much time we spend pursuing empty pleasures and needs, it really does drive a nail through our appreciation of life. — darthbarracuda

You shift gears here. Your first sentence is an argument for not living life, arguing that all pursuits are useless, so you should just sit on the front porch swing waiting to die. The second sentence adds the word "empty," which qualifies pleasures and needs, suggesting perhaps that there are some needs/desires that are not empty. Perhaps discovering what is empty and what is not might be the way to go here. What do you think?

I do think it's generally accepted that some pursuits are worthwhile and others not, like spending time with those close to you, developing relationships, helping others, thinking about the meaning of life, and engaging in intellectual pursuits. These would be in contrast to "chasing cheese" for whatever that entails.

Even should you disagree that the pursuits I've itemized are meaningful, I don't see how you can assert that starving yourself, shivering naked in the cold, or denying yourself sex are somehow meaningful. It's not like starving isn't a pursuit in itself, so I'm not entirely clear why starving is a good pursuit but eating is a bad pursuit. The only truly critical difference it seems is that the former is masochistic and the latter not. You'd have to explain to me why a masochistic philosophy is better than one that allows for personal comfort.

If starvation will free me from the binds of needing to eat, perhaps demeaning me and throwing trash on me would free me from the binds of needing kindness. And, if starving yourself provides you meaning in your ass backwards world, maybe we should deny you starvation and force you to eat just to really fuck with you. We can't allow you to become addicted to self-depravation because that would interfere with your free will. Every now and then we need to compliment a masochist just to piss him off.

The Amish actually have a word for someone who seeks too much simplicity as being proudly humble and therefore in violation of the Amish rule against pride. I don't know what the word is. My Pennsylvania Dutch is rusty.

Regarding Dennett, I agree that Consciousness Explained is very bad in most of its positive explanatory aspirations. — Pierre-Normand

There seemed to be such hype surrounding Dennett when I read that book that I felt I must not understand it and that I was missing something. I felt vindicated when I later discovered that many felt it as unpersuasive as I did.

I did point out the logical problems with the association of celibacy and the anti-natalist position, indicating that there is simply no way to correlate the two. You can hate sex and want more children in the world, love sex and want no more children in the world, hate sex and hate children, and love sex and love children. We could even change the word "hate" to "be indifferent to" and "love" to "sort of like" and even create more logical possibilities. Every possible logical possibility can exist.

This being a philosophy forum, and my response being so obvious, I can only wonder (and admittedly out loud) why someone might try to draw a correlation when there isn't one. My thought was that the OP wasn't rational at all, but more of a rationalization; thus my response, which included a possible reason one might wish to rationalize.

I'd also point out that if a rule were passed requiring that I remain on topic, the world would have lost out on some of my most interesting insights.

I'd also add that if the celibacy is the result of social inability to find a partner or simple lack of interest in pursuing sexual relationships, then it has nothing at all to do with wanting or not wanting children. There are plenty of women who have chosen to become pregnant but have not wanted to be in a relationship and there are plenty of people who have wanted to have children but who couldn't find a partner.

I'd also point out that if your celibacy is the result of inability, then you may want to work on those issues as opposed to philosophizing them away and convincing yourself that you're advancing some higher objective. I have the sneaky suspicion that all this "I'm not interested in such matters" would get turned upside down if the right person came along. Own it and fix it.