>using chans
>at all

this was amusing though

1.  Stats pls

http://www.thekimfoundation.org/html/about_mental_ill/statistics.html

This is common knowledge, by the way. This shouldn't be news to you.

3.  Well with science and medicine/technology advancing, we may yet get to see some form of cute for cancer, but for now we do have the technology and hemp oils to help relieve the battles with cancer.

Which doesn't justify imposing life on children.

I'm going through life fine.

I don't care. It's not about you. It's about the future generations who will be born as a result of ignorant stupidity. Just because you think you're "going through life fine" (you're probably a 20-something, if that, so you know absolutely nothing about how shitty life can really get), doesn't give you the right to impose it on anybody else.

4.  That's why we have ways for people to try and get themselves out of poverty

They shouldn't be having children if they're in poverty to BEGIN WITH. No fucking shit.

5.  Society is progressing towards being more tolerant of homosexuals

Slowly. Imagine this: There are still racists in America. People who want the South to "rise again". They exist. The KKK is still in formation, as much of a joke as they are.

You can't escape bigotry.

tl;dr, don't try and raise a family because you have a small risk of giving your children diseases.

1 in 5.

That is COLOSSAL.

And it's not JUST diseases, asshole. Everything about life is pretty much just shit.

Well shit, thank God we have treatments so they can continue living happy lives if such a thing were to occur.

Good luck curing cancer, AIDS, diabetes, elephantiasis, harlequin ichthyosis, etc. etc. etc.

And again, that's not even touching upon things that'll ensure your kid's life will suck that aren't diseases. Most children are born in fucking poverty. Some are born homosexual in a culture that fucking HATES homosexuals. The horror just doesn't fucking end at diseases. It just happens to be a very poginant example.

I'd like to add that wanting to die isn't necessarily tied to mental instability; there are states in the US that allow euthanasia so long as the person is making the decision sound of mind.

How would that sort of thing be judged, anyway? Because, in my opinion, nobody is "sound of mind". What does that even mean, realistically?

It doesn't convince you so you don't accept it as valid, that doesn't mean it's invalid at all just that you perceive it as such.

So what the fuck am I supposed to be like? I don't KNOW too many other anti-natalists, genius, and even if I did, what am I supposed to do? Consult them? I'm not allowed to think for myself? What the FUCK are you trying to say here?
You INARTICULATE weasel.

Because we haven't created a successor race yet, evolution is about achieving greater and greater forms so for the human race - one of the most promising results of evolution so far, you know with sentience and all that - to wipe itself out without at least leaving a positive legacy in the universe is selfish to the other beings that live in it.

And you accuse me of "mental gymnastics"... Jesus Christ. How could it possibly be selfish to run out the human race voluntarily? What's selfish is to impose life for your bizarre (and futile) ideal of "creating the ultimate race". Because we're going to fail.

Hell just Earth as an example, what kind of species rapes the bejeesus out of the planet and then decides to wipe itself out without cleaning up it's mess.

That's my argument, though. Anti-natalism is the mop that will clean up the final mess on planet Earth. Really, I'm also an efilist--I don't just think humans should go extinct. I think all life should go extinct. I'm not here to tell you how we could do that--I'm just trying to spread the idea and let people know that it's a good idea. If all life goes extinct, it doesn't matter what we leave behind. There's no one left to care.

I've said for a while now, if humanity can create a race of sentient machines to look after planets in a far better manner than we do then we can all die out and I wouldn't really care. Completing that goal isn't likely to happen anytime soon, so prematurely encouraging extinction is wrong.

It's not likely to happen any time ever.

Quote

Or because they don't want to live anymore. You forgot that really basic part that no one else would have ever missed.

Which falls under mental illness.

According to...?

Whoever it is, they're wrong. And even if they're right, who cares?

M.

Quote

Why? Why must you force people to continue living if they don't want to?

Because it is immoral to let someone die when they can be treated, forcing people to continue living is exactly what A&E do for attempted suicides or what sectioning does to the severely disturbed who frequently make attempts on their own life. A treatable mental illness causes them to wish to die/kill themselves, so just standing idly by and letting people jump/overdose/slice down the road rather than getting them the therapy that treats that mindset is wrong.

Why? You just restated your shitty point. If someone wants to die, why is it wrong to let them die? Because you think living is so much cooler? Why should they give a fuck about what you think?

Someone who has a mental illness is not in the right state of mind to be making decisions over their own mortality,

Who.

Cares.

Why does that matter.

The illness can be treated and then the wish to die has disappeared/receded, mental illness is not a terminal disease and people should not be dying because of it.

You can make these bogus arguments (you're pretending as though the only people who want to die are ones who are already severely ill, which is false), but it has nothing to do with our rights. Regardless of these shitty emotional appeals you're making, you should still have the right to kill yourself.

The families of the patient care, their friends and wider social circles. Their doctors and shrinks care too, letting someone kill themselves because you didn't give them the necessary treatment is one of the worst possible failings of a medical professional.

Unless they want to die. In which case, it's completely justified. If someone is suffering, and they don't want to live anymore, end it.

Thank you.

And you wonder why I lash out and get fucking pissed off at you.

What you're saying is evil.

E-V-I-L

Wrong, it does matter. It's the responsibility of MHC workers to make sure that people afflicted with something like depression don't simply kill themselves

Then they have an evil responsibility.

Which in my book covers 99.99% of people with that sort of mindset, leaving room for the abnormals as always but people who want to die are either mentally ill or are trying to escape something like shame/restoring their honour etc. Someone who wishes they were never born and genuinely wants to die is mentally ill.

1. No they're not.
2. Even if they are, it doesn't matter. It will never matter.

People who want to die should have the right to die. It makes perfect sense that someone might be dissatisfied with the fact that they were forced into life by two fucktards.

At times, sure. I'm not a perfect linguistic genius, but I'd say it's better than spamming cUNT whenever you run into an argument.

Good thing I haven't done that. Which leaves you being incredibly inarticulate.

lol

Nice refutation.

So you were actually butthurt over this? Nice.

Glad to know my reports of your posts have been completely justified. Piece of shit.

I wonder why that is then, because I've seen plenty of people present sound arguments to you in the past and they all got the same dismissals.

Maybe because they're FUCKING WRONG.

If someone is wrong, you argue with them. I'm not going to fucking give up my philosophy just because a group of dumbfucks think I'm wrong. No, I think you're wrong, and I don't think I've received a single sound argument yet. Not a single person has been able to adequately answer the question, "why should the human race continue"?

And you had one of the shittiest answers yet.

And with people who live in the real world, existential angst tends to rank pretty low on their list of priorities. I'm pretty sure people can afford to be wrong over that, because when it's compared to things like securing a future for their families or their own success in life people will not really give a shit about whether their own existence is morally justifiable or if having children and grandchildren is an affront to one particular type of philosophy.

Which makes them all fucktards. Yes, it does.

Quote

Zero hypocrisy.

lol, sure.

ZERO hypocrisy.

You insulted me first. You should be banned.

why highlight the disabled to make your point?

BECAUSE ONE IN FIVE PEOPLE HAS SOME TYPE OF DEBILITY.

THAT'S REALITY.

I'm obviously going to bring up examples of reality that might OFFEND you, because they're REALITY. This should DETER you from ever wanting to have children, because you shouldn't want to impose CANCER, or anything else that's going to make them either an intense sufferer, or a complete loser for the rest of their lives. You SHOULDN'T want to impose that on ANYBODY.

Justifying your ideology by using the infirm as a reason not to 'risk' having children is just downright scummy.

I really don't fucking see how. Kindly demonstrate how illustrating a concept of reality is "scummy".

PEOPLE ARE BORN WITH CRIPPLING DISEASES.

Would you appreciate being born with a crippling fucking disease? I don't fucking think so.
Let me take all of your money and gamble it away, and see how you like it.

What's her malfunction?




lol

social aspects of race

AKA the only aspects that matter

And he's saying what I am. Correlation of violence to blacks in America is skewed in a way that negatively reflects on the individual because of their skin instead of their culture. This leads to the assumption that someone from Compton will act the same as someone from Johanessburg.

i mean, i feel like i know what you're gonna say, but keep in mind what you just said here

"negatively reflects on the individual because of their skin
not their culture"

in other words, race > ethnicity
you'd think if people accepted that race is a social construct, that kind of shit wouldn't happen, would it

that's precisely my argument

One could argue that they're both illusory and imagined. But racial categories have had a much more concrete impact on peoples' lives, because they've been used to discriminate and to distribute resources unequally and set up different standards for protection under law.

but that still means that they're "illusory and imagined"--it doesn't matter that, historically, we've treated them as if they're real

because they're not
they're not real because we've thought so in the past--that's just silly

Here's a PBS article with experts in the field explaining the differences.

First of all, race is primarily unitary. You can only have one race, while you can claim multiple ethnic affiliations. You can identify ethnically as Irish and Polish, but you have to be essentially either black or white.

so what is this guy saying

you can't be half-black, or mixed race?
does he know a guy called barack obama?

the rest of what he said seemed sound, but he prefaced it with a bunch of bullshit

let's try the next guy

I think the most powerful argument about the differentiation between race and ethnicity is that race becomes institutionalized in a way that has profound social consequences on the members of different groups.

well, there you go

this guy pretty much made my argument for me

and the next guy agrees with him, too

That was ethnicity I was just describing, Verb.

Race = Genetics
Ethnicity = Genetics + Culture

Ethnicity is impacted by social expectations/perceptions. Race isn't.

says who, exactly?

i would argue, as i stated earlier, that race includes culture as well
like... why can't it

Quote from: Saerveyn on April 27, 2015, 09:23:39 PM

People seem to be assuming that just because a race has a larger probability of receiving some disease, that it is due to some level of "racial traits"rather than simply being...you know, a correlation.

Take sickle cell anemia for example. To say it's just a "black person disease" is wrong, because we know that race isn't specifically tied to skin color; a biracial person that physically appears to be one or the other (I.E., Barack Obama appears to be black despite being biracial) could very well be susceptible to certain medical or genetic conditions because of their genotype. Sickle cell anemia in Africans evolved as a way to combat Malaria, which is why black people are more prone to having it. So no, it's not at all just a mere correlation, it's an actual trait of the race, and it's relevant outside of the limited scope of society.

i just said thaaaaaaaat

not to mention, "black people are more likely to commit a crime"

yeah, maybe statistically
but not genetically

as cindy said, correlation =/= causation
that's all we're saying

If you're arguing that it stems from ancestors... you aren't really refuting anything here. All I said is that races aren't a social construct because it's defined by hereditary commonality.

well, it obviously stems from ancestors--that's the whole idea behind genetics and hereditary traits like sickle cell and such

you brought up the sickle cell thing and implied that it had anything to do with race, so i tackled that