How bad does life have to get

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 03:26:40 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:27:49 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:25:11 PM

Seriously, it wouldn't be voluntary. I don't really care to argue for hypothetical BS.

You're just avoiding the question. We're talking about a relation of ideas, here, not some synthetic proposition. If I were to say "voluntary extinction will happen", that's a synthetic proposition.

But I'm not. There's nothing contradictory contained within the idea of voluntary extinction, at all. Nobody's assuming that it will or probabalistically can happen, we're merely noting how it's coherent.

The question is a valid one; is voluntary extinction genocide?

Verbatim · February 04, 2015, 03:28:45 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:26:40 PM

I'd say it would count as genocide. Because it would be forced due to the fact that it wouldn't be completely voluntary

"the deliberate killing of a large group of people"
"an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of people"
"choosing not to procreate"

one of these things is not like the other

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:29:24 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:26:40 PM

No, because there is no way every human would agree.

I'd say it would count as genocide. Because it would be forced due to the fact that it wouldn't be completely voluntary.

>is voluntary extinction genocide
>yes because it wouldnt be voluntary

What? There's nothing contradictory about the idea of voluntary extinction, at all, regardless of its probability. The question is whether or not voluntary extinction is genocide. If it isn't, then you can't accuse Verbatim of genocide. If it is, genocide is not in itself a bad thing.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · February 04, 2015, 03:30:43 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 04, 2015, 03:23:35 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:22:21 PM
It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.
That's not true; it's logically possible for a species to voluntarily go extinct. There's no contradiction there.

I mean, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely to happen, which I think is what Nuka's getting at.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:31:57 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:29:48 PM

I don't feel like arguing BS hypotheticals.

It's not a BS hypothetical, though. It's about whether or not you can actually accuse Verbatim of advocating genocide. Which you obviously can't because voluntary extinction isn't genocide.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:32:59 PM

Quote from: Kupo on February 04, 2015, 03:30:43 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 04, 2015, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:22:21 PM
It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.
That's not true; it's logically possible for a species to voluntarily go extinct. There's no contradiction there.
I mean, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely to happen, which I think is what Nuka's getting at.

Again, we're talking about a relation of ideas, not an empirical occurrence.

If voluntary extinction is in fact not equal to genocide, then you can't accuse Verbatim (or most antinatalists) of being genocidal because that wouldn't be coherent.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · February 04, 2015, 03:33:00 PM

Quote from: Kupo on February 04, 2015, 03:30:43 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 04, 2015, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:22:21 PM
It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.
That's not true; it's logically possible for a species to voluntarily go extinct. There's no contradiction there.
I mean, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely to happen, which I think is what Nuka's getting at.

We're discussing concepts here, not probable implementation. "Likeliness" has nothing to do with the question.

Verbatim · February 04, 2015, 03:33:34 PM

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.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · February 04, 2015, 03:35:09 PM

It's not impossible to argue against anti-natalism in some forms or another, but you don't need to resort to calling it genocidal or edgy. All it does is make the conversation steer back towards defining anti-natalism, since most reactions I've seen are knee-jerk to the name alone.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:35:54 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 04, 2015, 03:33:34 PM

This is how he argues.

This really isn't a problem with Challenger. It's a problem with how people can become morally dumbfounded. In the same way people can become logically dumbfounded and fail to accept the correct answer to the Monty Hall problem.

Which is why philosophy education ought to be mandatory.

Anonymous (User Deleted) · February 04, 2015, 03:36:30 PM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 04, 2015, 03:33:00 PM

Quote from: Kupo on February 04, 2015, 03:30:43 PM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 04, 2015, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:22:21 PM
It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.
That's not true; it's logically possible for a species to voluntarily go extinct. There's no contradiction there.
I mean, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely to happen, which I think is what Nuka's getting at.
We're discussing concepts here, not probable implementation. "Likeliness" has nothing to do with the question.

I'm not disputing that.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:38:17 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:35:49 PM

I don't believe I ever said anything about genocide.

The first thing you quite clearly said to me in relation to this discussion:

Quote

It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.

That's a roundabout way of trying to justify calling Verbatim genocidal. You're saying "Well, what he's advocating isn't possible, so it necessarily leads to this". The only person actually discussing bullshit hypotheticals here, is you.

I'm here to say, "Hang on a minute, that doesn't follow because Verbatim's position is neither genocidal in and of itself, nor does it necessitate what you claim".

🍁 Aria 🔮 · February 04, 2015, 03:38:33 PM

Quote from: Kupo on February 04, 2015, 03:36:30 PM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 04, 2015, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Kupo on February 04, 2015, 03:30:43 PM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 04, 2015, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:22:21 PM
It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.
That's not true; it's logically possible for a species to voluntarily go extinct. There's no contradiction there.
I mean, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely to happen, which I think is what Nuka's getting at.
We're discussing concepts here, not probable implementation. "Likeliness" has nothing to do with the question.
I'm not disputing that.

Okay then. I just thought I'd restate what Meta said with less fancy vocabulary to see if more people would understand that. >_>

Anonymous (User Deleted) · February 04, 2015, 03:39:22 PM

Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 04, 2015, 03:38:33 PM

Quote from: Kupo on February 04, 2015, 03:36:30 PM
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 04, 2015, 03:33:00 PM
Quote from: Kupo on February 04, 2015, 03:30:43 PM
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 04, 2015, 03:23:35 PM
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:22:21 PM
It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.
That's not true; it's logically possible for a species to voluntarily go extinct. There's no contradiction there.
I mean, it's possible, but it's extremely unlikely to happen, which I think is what Nuka's getting at.
We're discussing concepts here, not probable implementation. "Likeliness" has nothing to do with the question.
I'm not disputing that.
Okay then. I just thought I'd restate what Meta said with less fancy vocabulary to see if more people would understand that. >_>

Thanks for your concern <.<

Verbatim · February 04, 2015, 03:40:34 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 04, 2015, 03:35:54 PM

This really isn't a problem with Challenger. It's a problem with how people can become morally dumbfounded. In the same way people can become logically dumbfounded and fail to accept the correct answer to the Monty Hall problem.

Which is why philosophy education ought to be mandatory.

I guess I just have to approach the subject more tactfully next time, if I ever introduce it to another group of people. But... How? At some point, I'm gonna have to bring up the fact that, yeah, if everyone's an anti-natalist, we're going extinct. It's not a "goal" so much as it is the method to which we will destroy all suffering, or disutility.

But that's still not enough to cozy people up to the idea.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:41:20 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:40:08 PM

That sounds like an assumption.

No, it's literally what you said.

I said is voluntary extinction genocide, and you tried to claim it doesn't matter because the only way Verbatim would ever get his way is through some sort of genocidal infringement upon other people. Which doesn't follow.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 03:44:53 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:46:04 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:42:25 PM

Except it's not.

So what does this mean?

Quote

It wouldn't be voluntary, it'd be forced. That's the only way for it to be possible.

Verbatim · February 04, 2015, 03:46:25 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:44:53 PM

people would resist

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

Enjoy being wrong.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 03:46:33 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:47:32 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:44:53 PM

It wouldn't be voluntary. I don't care for hypotheticals. Fact of the matter is, people would resist, and forcing them to not procreate with the end goal being the destruction of humanity (sugarcoat it as much as you like and use terms like "anti natalism"), it's genocide.

Except it's not, because that's not what Verbatim advocates.

We don't need to claim that voluntary extinction is possible to show how it isn't genocidal. There's nothing about antinatalism would necessitates coercion, and there's nothing contradictory about the concept of voluntary extinction.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 03:48:42 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:49:02 PM

Say what you want, but Verb knows how to keep a thread alive.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:51:04 PM

Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 04, 2015, 03:49:40 PM

It wouldn't be voluntary because there's no way the entire human race would agree to it.

Except I've already demonstrated how this is irrelevant, and that you're making the assumption that this is in any way relevant to Verbatim's philosophy. . .

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 03:51:31 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Verbatim · February 04, 2015, 03:52:11 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:48:42 PM

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?

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:52:39 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:51:31 PM

If the last one were to ever become mainstream the first two would follow.

That's obviously a legitimate practical concern, but it has no weight on whether or not antinatalism is actually genocidal as a philosophy.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 03:53:37 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 03:54:39 PM

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.