yeah

If the philosophy would result in forced non-reproduction (which it would), then it's genocide. There's just no two ways about it. It doesn't matter if in theory such and such is not supposed to happen, what matters is what would happen.

Even if it would happen, that's still not genocide. It's only genocide if I say, "Let's KILL EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO HAVE KIDS." And then I actually do it.

That's what genocide is, cupcake.

Why? To enforce babies not being born.

What have you learned about anti-natalism, then? Nothing? Obviously. But I mean... Nothing nothing?

Anti-natalists posit that unmitigated suffering is an invariably negative value experience (note the word unmitigated, please. This isn't the type of suffering you learn shit from--this is unjustified violence to enforce law, like you're suggesting here).

There is no reason that an anti-natalist would resort, then, to imposing violence upon those who simply oppose them. That is diametrically opposed to everything that an anti-natalist stands for. Referring back to what Meta said--a violent anti-natalist is like saying a meat-eating vegan, or a godless Christian.

Humanity is not an ideology

Natalism is.

Learn what a no true scotsman fallacy is. I never made one.

]Of course you "can't". You're biased beyond all reason.

No, I just know more about the philosophy than you, quite obviously.

So, tell me--you're never wrong, so tell me--Why would an anti-natalist be violent?

If the suicide bomber killed others in the name of Jainism, I very well could.

Under the same line of reasoning, I could say that one person suffering is enough for me to call life a horrible imposition that needs to end.

a lot of people have to do a great many things - they don't. You think humans would behave differently because...?

Because if that ended up being the case, they WOULDN'T be anti-natalists. They would be glib duplicitous shitheads.

Maybe not you specifically, but let's say "anti natalists" or as I like to call them "genocidal maniacs" are the majority with their ideology being mainstream.

Are you really going to sit there and tell me no human being would react violent? You, the hater of suffering and those who cause it, who bemoans all the suffering caused by the grand majority of humans?

I don't follow. Are you saying the anti-natalist majority would be violent? If so, that's preposterous on its face. Anti-natalism is a philosophy you can only subscribe to if you're a pacifist.

If you're saying the natalist minority would react violent, then, well, that kind of makes them the assholes, doesn't it?

people would resist

So that automatically means that people like me would resort to violence, right?

Enjoy being wrong.

If it's not genocide, it's just gonna be some other negative label that makes me look like the bad guy. The insane guy.

This is how challengerX functions. This is how he argues.

So, would voluntary extinction count as a form of genocide?

No. I don't even know how you could contrive that.

I do tend to hate games the more realistic they try to be.

Not having kids = Genocide.

K.

If there's bacteria in our galaxy, there's sentient life in the universe.

Yeah. On planet Earth. We know this. Thank you.

Pretty sure you just did.

Pretty sure telling someone not to have kids is literally the exact opposite of killing someone.

No you're not. We've found bacteria.

Oh wow, I didn't know bacteria was sentient!

And the fact that you're advocating killing all life in the universe is disgusting.

Good thing I'm actually not doing that.

you get a zero out of fucking zero

because all you can get is a fucking zero

Consensus among scientists is that it's probably infinite. I can provide sourcing if you'd like.

Please do.

That's literally an unattainable goal for humanity at anything near our level of advancement. If you want to clear the entire universe up, you have to retain some agents to, well, do the cleaning.

Hence the cancer patient analogy. I don't care much for this all-or-nothing mentality.

No, you're supposed to realize that even though your philosophy may be right, now is not the right time to enact it on  a widespread level.

When there's a single iota of definitive evidence for the existence of sentient extraterrestrial life, I'll concede to that. So, basically, not in my lifetime. A lot of people get all emotional if I even suggest the possibility that we're alone in the universe--but I'm simply applying Occam's razor, nothing more.