I think it's disingenuous to call it genocidal in its current state, though the parallels are there.

I suppose it depends on the way one comes to the anti-natalist conclusion.

Verb's path to anti-natalism is based on radical voluntaryism, Verb argues that forcing life on others is wrong. Because so much emphasis is placed on consent, it's pretty hard to twist this into a mindset that would lead to the use of force.

Anti-natalism from, say, a radical environmentalist mindset, could be genocidal. Say a group decides humans should die out because they encroach on natural habitats and pollute the earth. They sterilize themselves and begin forcibly sterilizing everyone else. This is pretty close to genocide.

I think it's a bit dishonest to associate anti-natalism with genocide. Genocide implies the targeting of a specific group.

Let's look at the roots.

the Latin word gens or gentis, meaning birth, stock, race

And cidium, in it's french form cide, meaning killing

Genocide is the destruction of people based on their ancestry. We all know this, so I'm not sure why this has to be exained.

Let's look at some major genocides, shall we?

Armenian Genocide:
I consider the name here inaccurate, because Armenians were not the only target. Christian genocide might be more accurate. The ultranationalist Young Turks regime engaged in, and encouraged, the mass killing of Pontic Greek, Armenian, and Assyrian Christian populations within the Ottoman Empire. This was carried out by Muslim Turks, Kurds, and Arabs, mostly by the military.

Rwandan Genocide:
Mass killing of the Tutsi population of Rwanda by the Hutu majority after the assassination of the Hutu president. Pretty straightforward.

Holocaust:
Extermination of groups labelled subhuman by Germany's Nazi regime. Bit more emphasis on eugenics than ethnic cleansing, ethnic Germans were as likely to be targeted as others if they suffered from a disability. Possibly the most disturbing cases of this were the forced sterilizations of women suffering from ailments as mundane as depression or anxiety. German dissidents were killed as well. The Holocaust was, essentially, the Nazi regime's policy for the removal of undesirables.

Genocide targets specific groups. It is carried out largely by one or more other groups with the intent to destroy the target group.

I really don't see how anti-natalism is genocide, given that it is entirely based on inaction, not the use of force, and is not intended to target a specific group. In fact, anti-nataliism and force are antithetical. Anti-natalism is a radical view where extreme value is placed on consent. You may not, in this mindset, make any decision for another person, even choosing to give them life. At least, as I understand it.

Da ebil republicans are conspurating wit ta ebil baby killing isrealis!!!

☭

I really don't see much that can be gained from this discussion anymore: Yeah, we get it, fundies are creeps. We already knew that. That has been the consensus for years.

If the conversation were going somewhere, maybe that they could be right about the bible being anti-gay, or that all Christians are dumb because it's basically a death cult, then it would be worth having. But neither of those ideas are kosher, so we're all deadlocked at "Fundies are bad. People who hate gays are despicable/not real Christians".

The discussion has turned into a disturbingly halfhearted circle jerk.

Collectivism is a cancer.

You're probably autistic

Yeah yeah christians are dumb, what else is new?

No?

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/pat-robertson-give-network-money-help-job-prospects

How about now?

http://www.novayagazeta-ug.ru/news/u4734/2014/12/04/94132

Confirmed so far:

>some terrorists/rebels/freedom fighters(henceforth "cheeki breekis") stole 3 taxis outside of city
>cheeki breekis drove into city
>on way to city cops tried to stop them, cheeki breekis shot 3 cops
>cheeki breekis fortified themselves in "Print House" in middle of Groznyi
>no hostages supposedly
>cheeki breekis being stormed

Historical background:
>Chechnya was part of USSR
>when USSR broke up Chechnya broke away from Russia
>first chechen war: Russia failed to take back Chechnya
>second chechen war: Russia took back Chechnya
>Chechens salty as fuck

Australia has had censorship issues for a while now.

Where's the mass outrage and rioting over this one?

Anybody who proposes this view, in sentiment if not in words, is mentally disabled. The first rule of economics is that scarcity matters.

Happiness, love, hate and anger are important precisely because they are not eternal. What value is an emotion if you have an infinite capacity to experience it? Not to mention, the proposition is itself inherently sadomasochistic; it is the reverence of death over life. The establishment of an eschatological cult that can only wish for the End of Days.

This is why you're my favorite

@Everyone who replied: This isn't a topic a short message rebuttal does justice to. Trying to condense this just makes you inherently come off as overly hedonistic or an absolute nihilist. That's just mathematically how a deductive post can be set up [statement -> contained premises -> restatement]. I shy away from this kind of stuff aside from dedicated philosophy forums for that very reason... "short" arguments against nihilism are always inherently unconvincing it seems. And, well, it brings up the topic of religion which is never fun to talk about online

tl;dr: Much of your arguments won't be convincing to any person fascinated with the concept of nonexistence. Just sayin' right now, I've seen too many people get pissed off by this discussion.

OT: If you really want to fight nihilism, you should read some more Camus XD

Camus kept me from offing myself a while back.