How bad does life have to get

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:55:05 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:53:37 PM

Islam is a religion of peace.

Yes, but that's false because the propositions within Islam aren't peaceful. Jainism is a peaceful religion, and if you found a Jain who was also a suicide bomber, you wouldn't be able to claim Jainism was no longer peaceful.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 03:56:01 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:54:39 PM

If the philosophy would be genocidal in practice, it's a genocidal philosophy.

That's like claiming the atomic scientists who worked on the Manhatten Project killed hundreds of thousands of people.

Verbatim · February 04, 2015, 03:56:29 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:53:37 PM

And according to Muslims, Islam is a religion of peace.

There's a difference between rhetoric and... actually believing in what you're saying.

You HAVE to be a pacifist if you're an anti-natalist. You have to. If you're not a pacifist, you CAN'T be an anti-natalist, because you're violating the fundamental premise of anti-natalism that pain and suffering shouldn't happen to anyone (unless you have a great cause--and hurting people for wanting to have kids is NOT a good cause).

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 03:57:27 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, 03:58:30 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, 03:59:07 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:57:27 PM

But the majority of the followers are peaceful.

Irrelevant, Islamic propositions are clearly violent.

Quote

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

So if a Muslim ran out of a liquor store with a bottle of Jack and a packet of bacon shouting "Allahu Ackbar", you could claim Islam encourages the theft of liquor and bacon?

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 03:59:27 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, 04:01:38 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:58:30 PM

Poor analogy.

Okay--it's possible for most ideologies to be enforced in a genocidal and barbaric manner. That doesn't make them all genocidal and barbaric.

If Alvin Plantinga got droves and droves of militant Christians to enforce Reformed Epistemology in schools and hang people who disagreed, that doesn't make Reformed Epistemology militant within itself. There is no propositional content within Reformed Epistemology which actually advocates or supports the use of violence. The fact that some people choose to enforce a philosophy or an ideology in such a way, isn't necessarily a comment on the nature of that philosophy or ideology.

Verbatim · February 04, 2015, 04:02:50 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:57:27 PM

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.

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 03:59:27 PM

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.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 04:02:59 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, 04:04:20 PM

There's no reason any anti-natalist would even want to be violent. I can't possibly contrive a scenario where there would be a violent anti-natalist, for ANY reason. At all.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 04:04:48 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, 04:05:01 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:02:59 PM

I'm talking about the "tenets" of anti natalism.

. . . That's exaclty our point. The tenets of antinatalism are not necessarily violent, and the fact that some people would behave in such a way and claim the motivation of antinatalism I) isn't a comment on antinatalism at all and II) doesn't make their motivation from antinatalism legitimate.

You have to show explicitly violent content within antinatalism.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 04:05:37 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.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 04:06:06 PM

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

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman

It's not a No True Scotsman because being a militant antinatalist is literally a contradiction.

Like being a Monotheistic Atheist, or a Married Bachelor. It just doesn't make sense.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 04:06:36 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, 04:07:13 PM

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

Humanity is not an ideology

Natalism is.

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

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:05:37 PM

]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?

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 04:07:42 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:06:36 PM

To me? That's vague enough for people to enforce this by any means necessary.

All that shows is a deficit in your understanding of antinatalism.

Funnily enough: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 04:08:55 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, 04:09:58 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:08:55 PM

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't remember there being a core tenet prohibiting violence.

Is there such a tenet? And if there is, do you seriously think people would care when they violate "thou shalt not kill" every day?

What did I JUST FUCKING SAY...

PACIFISM. It's a necessary component to the philosophy. How about we listen to the guy who's studied it for two years, maybe.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 04:10:47 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:08:55 PM

And if there is, do you seriously think people would care when they violate "thou shalt not kill" every day?

I'll let Verbatim answer if it's a necessary tenet, because I'm obviously not sure. But, if it is, the fact that people misbehave is no comment on the philosophy itself.

I mean, Nazis who saved Jews were bad Nazis, y'know.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 04:11:07 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, 04:13:26 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:11:07 PM

Why? To enforce babies not being born.

Except that would, on balance, worsen the problem which leads antinatalists to say its immoral to have children. Ergo, they wouldn't be genuine antinatalists (even if they felt genuinely motivated by it).

You can't be an antinatalist (at least in the Schopenhauerian tradition) and then try to enforce your philosophy in ways which obviously increase the net amount of suffering.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 04:13:32 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, 04:14:27 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:13:32 PM

Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 04, 2015, 04:07:42 PM
Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:06:36 PM
To me? That's vague enough for people to enforce this by any means necessary.
All that shows is a deficit in your understanding of antinatalism.

Funnily enough: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman
Its not a strawman at all. My entire point is the fact that this is genocide.

Which is what we're trying to show is wrong.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 04:15:59 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, 04:16:54 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:11:07 PM

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.

challengerX · February 04, 2015, 04:17:21 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.

🍁 Aria 🔮 · February 04, 2015, 04:17:37 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:11:07 PM

There will always be a violent group in an ideology, especially one that encourages people not to do things.

You are equating the potential for violence with an ideology that doesn't promote violence. If a self-identified anti-natalist were to blow up a daycare centre, that wouldn't mean anti-natalists want to blow up daycare centres. that means a violent individual acted against a core tenant- to reduce suffering (or disutility as meta would put it)- of the philosophy and blew up a daycare centre.

More Than Mortal · February 04, 2015, 04:17:44 PM

Quote from: challengerX on February 04, 2015, 04:15:59 PM

If it encourages people to not procreate, people will always take this to the "next level" and do whatever is necessary in their minds to fulfill that goal.

I'll refer you to my prior analogy then:

Quote

If Alvin Plantinga got droves and droves of militant Christians to enforce Reformed Epistemology in schools and hang people who disagreed, that doesn't make Reformed Epistemology militant within itself. There is no propositional content within Reformed Epistemology which actually advocates or supports the use of violence. The fact that some people choose to enforce a philosophy or an ideology in such a way, isn't necessarily a comment on the nature of that philosophy or ideology.