Because no one wants to suffer, or live in a universe where it's even possible to suffer.

I'm okay with it.

And I feel as if the majority of people are, as well.

Sure, I don't want to suffer, but I acknowledge that the consequence of that discomfort, whether it be physical or mental, has a very good chance of resulting in some acquisition of wisdom and experience that will allow me to work towards the minimization of that type of experience for other people. Some negative things are always gonna have to happen, but I remain fairly confident in my own head that the good things I experience in life do outweigh the bad. Most people feel this way.

Quote

Of course it's morally reprehensible to give birth to them, but the cause of anti-natalism needs mouthpieces.

I feel like you're being a shitter on purpose. Boring night? Been drinking, perhaps?

Honestly, I didn't mean to be offensive by using the term "mouthpieces". I was just referring to your comment about how anti-natalism needs advocates, and that partially justifies staying alive.

Quote

Not at all.

Why not? They don't have autonomy, so, to you, that means you can impose all you want on them.

Right?

First of all, because I don't believe in anti-natalism; second, because murder is wrong and future suffering never justifies it. I do believe that in limited circumstances suicide is an ethical response to abject suffering. You have yet to explain to me how ending their suffering and preventing any future suffering they can impose on others, before they've gained sentience or been corrupted by natalist society, is wrong.

Quote

I'm asking you to tell me why killing an infant isn't a morally preferable solution to letting it live a life in which it will experience suffering.

Could grow up to be an anti-natalist.

I mean, you're purposely changing the subject, but all right.

No, if the child was guaranteed to live a life of absolute suffering

Nope, an average kid. Tell me why an average kid, born in America, should not be murdered in the name of anti-natalism. This isn't a change of subject, it's a foundational justification of the claim that non-life is a far greater moral state than life and suffering.

Honestly, I didn't mean to be offensive by using the term "mouthpieces". I was just referring to your comment about how anti-natalism needs advocates, and that partially justifies staying alive.

I'm not even on about your use of that term--I just think it's too silly of an argument for me to dignify with a response, but if you insist: No. It's not okay to have kids just to teach them later that having kids is wrong.

If I could somehow look into the future, and discover that my child would become the anti-natalist to end them all, then sure, of course I'd have that fucking kid. But you see, challenger said it earlier--anti-natalism isn't dogmatic enough to say that having children is wrong as an incontrovertible rule.

If you have a good enough reason--and I mean a good goddamn reason--you can have a kid.

Nope, an average kid. Tell me why an average kid, born in America, should not be murdered in the name of anti-natalism. This isn't a change of subject, it's a foundational justification of the claim that non-life is a far great moral state than life and suffering.

Because anti-natalism isn't about murder--it's about not having kids. Killing one person doesn't end all suffering. You'd have to kill everyone, all at once, or no one at all.

Can you articulate why this doesn't extend to childbirth? Everyone stops having kids, or none at all.

Because--and you may have taken notice of this--people have trouble reconciling with anti-natalism.

I'd love for everyone to stop having kids.

...But, you see, I have to convince everyone that it's a good idea first.

I disagree. Not specifically in that context, but I'm perfectly alright with trudging through something unpleasant to achieve something good.

Yes, YOU are. That doesn't mean it's okay to impose on somebody else, though. That's the point.

Statistically I feel as if enough people share this mentality

Not only are they out of touch with reality, they've been indoctrinated. If all you think matters is how your personal life is going, then you have no place talking about ethics or philosophy.

Pretty sure we had the exact same lines before Winy but again:

You have nothing to say to someone who gets the raw end of a bad dice roll in life other than "sorry that just happens sometimes", which is an admission of guilt. Sure. Most people have the will to say that life is worth living, and in a cumulative sense, those successes erase the fact failures happen. But in the end you should consider the principle of putting others through that ordeal in order to achieve that net gain. I don't think slavery is moral even if it can improve the quality of life of the masters.

Quote from: ねこ on January 23, 2016, 03:37:19 PM

For a minute there I thought the lady in the video was a man.. <.<

She's trans.

Well, that explains why she's so bitter towards the world.

That's true. This is never going to become mainstream. It goes against our most basic urges of procreation and will be easily dismissed by a majority of people who look at their own lives and those of others before deciding that, in the end, life is well worth living. Anti-natilism is never going to work or catch on.

The same thing has been said about every major movement in history before it happened.

Even if you're right, simply saying that it's never going to happen doesn't make it true. It seems like this statement is merely a trembling mantra rooted in wishful thinking. You don't WANT it to catch on--so you say it repeatedly, in hopes that it never will, because surely it never will. You're scared of it, whether you're willing to admit it or not. And that's okay, I guess, but it doesn't lend your outlook on the philosophy any credence or merit or... anything, really.

But that's about it.

There's also numerous philosophical treatises and dissertations on the subject, but that would require a basic Google search, so I can understand why you might have missed up on them. Wait, what?

"But I've never heard of this author, and he doesn't appear to be very popular--this philosophy will never catch o--"

Sure, sure. Please, feel free to keep telling yourself that, if it makes you feel better.

Those are terrible comparisons. You can't equate movements that already saw a lot of success in other parts of the world or history and that pertain to topics like women voting to a movement that literally goes against one of the number one primal urges of our species.

I just did. Some would argue it's against the primal urges of our species to allow women to have the same rights as men. Others would argue it's against the primal urges of our species not to enslave blacks. In fact, some people do argue that. So no, they're not terrible comparisons. Sorry.

You're right. Of course, I don't know with absolute certainty that it won't be true.

Then we're done.

And that reality is why your philosophy doesn't scare, bother or worry me at all.

Because you're too scared/weak-minded to think for yourself on the issue, and use the majority as a safety blanket. "Even though I have no logical argument against the philosophy, and I can't defend my right to have children at all, at least I can fall back on the fact that most people think it's okay. Now I can sleep at night."

Gotcha.

The fact that you linked the only actual academic book on anti-natalism that I happen to know of is kind of telling. The fact that it hasn't even received 40 reviews in a decade kind of is too. And so is the fact that most people on the references page are long dead, don't support anti-natalism for anything other than practical reasons (environment, legal wrongful births) or are more or less nobodies.

I've already preempted this exact response, so I don't see why you felt the need to beleaguer the point again, as if it was needed.

-natalism won't happen because procreation is a primal drive that has shaped and directed our society, species and lives for hundreds of years

You've beleaguered on this point at least five or six times in this whole diatribe. The fact that it's all you have to say about the philosophy is telling.

I'm not here to discuss anti-natalism with you again.

You can't. You'd have to concede that having kids is wrong, and that you'll never be able to justify impregnating your girlfriend--ever, and doing so would make you--well, no better than the average scumfuck human being (and that's pretty evil). You probably haven't even considered adoption--you probably put some kind of invisible value to your precious bloodline, or some other stupid shit like that. This fact does scare you, quite clearly--if it didn't, there wouldn't be such denial. You wouldn't be trying to assure me that you truly don't care about the philosophy. Truly, truly.

I mean, to be clear, you don't fear it because you see it as a threat--you fear it because of its mere existence.

And it's obvious, and you make it more obvious with each and every response.

If anything, this is some good advice to you. Unless something directly affects a large group of people, you're not going to have it go mainstream without a much better basis. You need to step out of the shadows of obscure academic philosophic publications and people making cringe material on youtube. What you need is an actual movement. Someone eloquent and capable of spreading the message. High quality video productions going viral. Public action at schools and whatnot. Otherwise, this isn't going anywhere beyond being a fringe philosophy adhered to by a handful of "famous" people (like some lawyer trying to bank on wrongful birth and a free culture cartoonist) on wikipedia and an extremely small reddit community that hardly breaks a thousand views on videos that are considered major in their field.

You'll find that across history, the best ideas always tend to win in the end. That's all I have left to say.