Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:33:12 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:31:52 AM...what?Is something about what I said confusing? Because I can't see it.Your wording. I can't tell if you're saying it's impossible to be "a social darwinism" (again, the wording) or if you're insulting me for supposedly being a social darwinist, as you claimed.
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:31:52 AM...what?Is something about what I said confusing? Because I can't see it.
...what?
Not when there's adoption, sure.
One proposition of anti-natalism, as least as far as I can tell, is that a potential person should hold more precedence than an actual person. That sounds rather preposterous to me.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:32:05 AMQuote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMBut why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?Sorry, what? Since when was it possible to talk about actualities without potentials, since the latter necessarily precedes the former.One proposition of anti-natalism, as least as far as I can tell, is that a potential person should hold more precedence than an actual person. That sounds rather preposterous to me.
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMBut why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?Sorry, what? Since when was it possible to talk about actualities without potentials, since the latter necessarily precedes the former.
But why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:38:58 AMOne proposition of anti-natalism, as least as far as I can tell, is that a potential person should hold more precedence than an actual person. That sounds rather preposterous to me.I've never said anything remotely similar to that.
There's no such thing as perfection, even if it is such in your subjective view.
Killing myself doesn't evoke nonexistence for all life. It doesn't solve anything, and it makes it WORSE for people who have attachments to me.
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:38:58 AMQuote from: Meta Cognition on February 03, 2015, 10:32:05 AMQuote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMBut why potentials? Why are we dilly-dallying around in hypotheticals?Sorry, what? Since when was it possible to talk about actualities without potentials, since the latter necessarily precedes the former.One proposition of anti-natalism, as least as far as I can tell, is that a potential person should hold more precedence than an actual person. That sounds rather preposterous to me.No, since anti-natalism is seeking for the total elimination--as far as is logically possible--of potential persons. It's giving precedence to avoiding the initial imposition of disutility on a person, not saying potential persons have more value thab actual persons. It's precisely because actual persons have MORE value that we should reduce the number of potential persons.
Then I'm sure he'd be all for that.
Unless there was a painless way to eradicate all life. Then I'm sure he'd be all for that.
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:43:35 AMThen I'm sure he'd be all for that.I don't think so since that would be its own form of imposition. It'd depend on how he perceived the balance of utility in that hypothetical.
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:37:03 AMQuote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:34:37 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:31:29 AMQuote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who existSo... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)Which is always a plus, yes. Adoption is a fantastic thing, be it for children or pets.Better to give those without homes a home, after all.And that's what's being said here. Verb's not saying to kill all the babies, he's saying to not bring new life into suffering. If you want to be a parent still, adopt so that a being that's already been born- that's already tainted by the suffering- can life live with less of it.Well he doesn't want to kill, he just wants to stop all existence- at least from what I've gathered.Unless there was a painless way to eradicate all life. Then I'm sure he'd be all for that.
Quote from: Nuka 'Kal Vargun on February 03, 2015, 10:34:37 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:31:29 AMQuote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who existSo... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)Which is always a plus, yes. Adoption is a fantastic thing, be it for children or pets.Better to give those without homes a home, after all.And that's what's being said here. Verb's not saying to kill all the babies, he's saying to not bring new life into suffering. If you want to be a parent still, adopt so that a being that's already been born- that's already tainted by the suffering- can life live with less of it.
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:31:29 AMQuote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who existSo... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)Which is always a plus, yes. Adoption is a fantastic thing, be it for children or pets.Better to give those without homes a home, after all.
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:29:50 AMQuote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who existSo... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?Yes and no. Being a parent does involve suffering, but there are ways to be a parent without creating new life, e.g. adoption. The second point covers that: adopting a child will promote limiting their suffering (if you're able to, that is.)
Quote from: Prime Meridia on February 03, 2015, 10:25:25 AM1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who existSo... parenthood sucks and don't be a parent?
1) Creating life creates suffering2) Limit suffering from those who exist
...I think I'll have to think about this for a while before I reply again.
Quote from: Kupo on February 03, 2015, 10:45:25 AM...I think I'll have to think about this for a while before I reply again.That's what you should do, always.
Awkward.
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:45:54 AMAwkward.I can see where you're coming from, but I think the thought experiment would be much more relevant if--instead of the deletion of life--its the deletion of the capacity to actualise potential persons; mass sterilisation.
QuoteNot to mention, I can't persuade people not to have kids if I'm fucking dead.Ah yes, the gallant Knight of Grey is here to spread the word of why everything sucks.
Not to mention, I can't persuade people not to have kids if I'm fucking dead.
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 10:50:34 AMThere's a reason I ask pro-natalists (awful term) for a GOOD REASON to have kids. It's not a rhetorical question--I actually want an answer. I've never received a good one. Even Nuka concedes that there is no good reason to have kids.Only for as long as the need for adoption exists.
There's a reason I ask pro-natalists (awful term) for a GOOD REASON to have kids. It's not a rhetorical question--I actually want an answer. I've never received a good one. Even Nuka concedes that there is no good reason to have kids.
Well that's a shame.not the killing yourself bit
Say in the perfect society that there are no kids who stay in orphanages for very long, and the orphanages are relatively empty because they get picked up by a family so quickly.By all means, have 1-3 kids.
Alright fine.Apocalyptic senario. A small starting country. Take your pick.
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 11:08:40 AMAnd I made the point that pressing the button would, in my eyes, be beneficial to mankind. To cease to be. She figures you'd have some misgivings about that concept. Do you?You're talking about either Isara or Korra here, right?
And I made the point that pressing the button would, in my eyes, be beneficial to mankind. To cease to be. She figures you'd have some misgivings about that concept. Do you?
She figures you'd have some misgivings about that concept. Do you?
Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 11:08:40 AMShe figures you'd have some misgivings about that concept. Do you?I do actually. I've been thinking about a response to anti-natalism for the past few hours, and now that I'm at my laptop I'll post it in just a second.
To rebuild, obviously.
There can be a need sometimes, yes. Especially if it's something like...say, a group of people escaping an oppressive government or a group that was say...exiled to an island or something with no hopes or returning. If they're building a tribe, town or country, isn't having a population important?
Ah yes, I forgot. You rather that they just live the rest of their lives more and more lonely as each person dies off.
How bad does life have to get
