This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - challengerX
Pages: 1 ... 112011211122 11231124 ... 1397
33631
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:30:52 PM »
End humanity, yes; genocide, no. This can all be cleared up as simply using a word other than genocide. Extinction, destruction, elimination, improbable, maybe even esoteric. This entire argument has been based on the choice of that one word.
Humans that don't exist are nonexistent; if you aren't conceived, you don't exist. Promoting getting rid of humanity is a form of genocide. Wasn't an insult, I was serious.
Ok.
33632
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:25:14 PM »
wasting your time
Considering new ideas and discussing philosophical quandaries may be a waste of time for you, but considering that a good deal of Serious deals with those things, it would appear that you're a minority in that belief. I'm not intending to be condescending in saying this, but if you don't want to discuss philosophy, then don't. You're just wasting yours and every other person's time by doing that.
I never said I don't discuss philosophy.
I said I'm not going to sit here and answer loaded questions and allow you guys to jerk each other off because in theory nobody would be violent. In theory humanity could stop all wars and fighting and get rid of poverty, but we won't. I live in the real world.
How is it a loaded question? Anti-natalism is-- by nature-- an improbable concept. I'm not even an anti-natalist, I have no stake in the spread of the philosophy. You claimed that anti-natalism (essentially a thought experiment) is genocidal; since anti-natalism calls for a voluntary abstinence from procreation, it can't be genocidal by nature. It has nothing to do with those already concepted, it's preventative like a condom. "Don't have children" can sum up the doctrine.
"End humanity" is more like it. Since it deals with nonexistent beings, it can't involve genocide. There's nothing to kill. You can say with a degree of certainty what would happen in the case that it was applied practically, but again-- it's essentially a thought experiment. It's impractical, you can't argue it in terms of practicality. Humans are nonexistent beings? You are also really good at instigating, Chally. I don't even mean that negatively, it's truly an amazing trait that if applied elsewhere, could really do things. In the practical world.
Sick burn yo.
33633
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:22:16 PM »
>not tipping
Literally kill yourselves
In countries where waiters earn the standard minimum wage, why should they get tips? In the US, ok I understand but in the UK? lolno, they're just doing their job.
LITERALLY KILL YOURSELF
33634
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:18:36 PM »
LOL OP'S GONNA GET GET DRIVEBY'D FUCK YOUR FAGGOT GANG OP
33635
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:16:06 PM »
Serious board m8
33636
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:14:30 PM »
>not tipping
Literally kill yourselves
33637
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:12:38 PM »
Agreed. This is why I identify myself as a developer now rather than a gamer.
What's your opinion on developers flaunting their lifestyle and developer marriages?
33638
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:10:24 PM »
I would quote something with apostrophes, but I'm sure I'm not the first.
WELL WELL
wut
You're here. Stick around this time, partner.
33639
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:08:20 PM »
I've never tipped in my life
Kill yourself.
Minimum wage in the UK is £6.51 an hour, waiters here get paid that much at least and it's how much I earn at my job. If waiters should get tips why shouldn't I?
Because you're gay.
33640
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:06:11 PM »
33641
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:03:30 PM »
wasting your time
Considering new ideas and discussing philosophical quandaries may be a waste of time for you, but considering that a good deal of Serious deals with those things, it would appear that you're a minority in that belief. I'm not intending to be condescending in saying this, but if you don't want to discuss philosophy, then don't. You're just wasting yours and every other person's time by doing that.
I never said I don't discuss philosophy. I said I'm not going to sit here and answer loaded questions and allow you guys to jerk each other off because in theory nobody would be violent. In theory humanity could stop all wars and fighting and get rid of poverty, but we won't. I live in the real world.
33642
« on: February 04, 2015, 05:01:35 PM »
Anti natalism would be genocide in practice. You will always be wrong.
This is getting absolutely nowhere; I'm done. Be ignorant and delusional for all I care.
It's common sense that at least one person would enforce anti natalism with violence. Realistically it would be a lot more. Simple logic.
33643
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:59:56 PM »
I would quote something with apostrophes, but I'm sure I'm not the first.
WELL WELL
33644
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:58:36 PM »
My brother is a marine. Too tough for me. Props to anyone who is or wants to become a marine.
>tfw you can't join 
33645
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:55:22 PM »
Unless it is a quote inside a quote.
Yeah but that's not what people are doing.
33646
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:53:25 PM »
Yup. He doesn't exist, and neither does omnipotence, so it's a waste of time.
Then I'm done discussing this. If you can't hold any merit in philosophy, then there's no point in discussing philosophy with you.
Yall can use whatever terms let you sleep at night, but at the end of the day you're on here discussing unrealistic bullshit all day wasting your time. Anti natalism would be genocide in practice. Thus, stopping the discussion at a perfect hypothetical is delusion.
33647
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:47:48 PM »
Practicality is all that matters. I'm gonna hold you to that. I don't ever wanna see you posting anything frivolous, ever.
That has nothing to do with it. You're free to be obsessed with me and ride my nuts, but my point is your ideology isn't practical. Just like religion.
33648
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:45:41 PM »
It is. Because if they kill in the name of Quakerism, Quakerism drove them to do it. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done it. It's quite obvious that people can be wrong about the propositions that motivate them. Back to my theft analogy; if a Muslim claims Islam motivated him to steal bacon, there is quite a clear divide between the religious propositions he claims to follow and his actions.
He's either being dishonest or--in the case of both Quakers and antinatalists--he doesn't actually understand the content of the propositions which he claims motivated him.
And the violent religious nutjobs seen to forget the part where they're not supposed to kill.
33649
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:44:15 PM »
This is really simple. You guys just refuse to accept that in practice, it'd be genocide.
And you refuse to understand that we aren't talking about practicality.
Yes or no: is VOLUNTARY extinction genocide? No "in practice", because that's irrelevant. We aren't talking about probability, or "how it would actually work out". It's an incredibly simple question. If every single human were to agree to not procreate, would it be genocide?
Practicality is all that matters.
Otherwise we might as well talk about flying pigs.
And I assume that (to use another thread in Serious as an example) the discussion of God's Omnipotence is uninteresting because it lacks practical application.
Yup. He doesn't exist, and neither does omnipotence, so it's a waste of time. It would be genocide in practice, so it's genocidal in theory. Simple as that.
33650
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:40:17 PM »
This is really simple. You guys just refuse to accept that in practice, it'd be genocide.
And you refuse to understand that we aren't talking about practicality.
Yes or no: is VOLUNTARY extinction genocide? No "in practice", because that's irrelevant. We aren't talking about probability, or "how it would actually work out". It's an incredibly simple question. If every single human were to agree to not procreate, would it be genocide?
Practicality is all that matters. Otherwise we might as well talk about flying pigs.
33651
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:33:46 PM »
If the philosophy would result in forced non-reproduction (which it would), then it's genocide. There's just no two ways about it. It doesn't matter if in theory such and such is not supposed to happen, what matters is what would happen. Even if it would happen, that's still not genocide. It's only genocide if I say, "Let's KILL EVERYONE WHO WANTS TO HAVE KIDS." And then I actually do it.
That's what genocide is, cupcake.
It's what would happen as a result of the ideology, muffin.
33652
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:32:04 PM »
what matters is what would happen.
"It doesn't matter if Quakerism is pacifist, if some Quakers end up killing some people in an evangelical effort, Quakerism is obviously murderous".
It is. Because if they kill in the name of Quakerism, Quakerism drove them to do it. Otherwise, they wouldn't have done it. This is really simple. You guys just refuse to accept that in practice, it'd be genocide.
33653
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:23:39 PM »
I'm going to make a central post because I'd just be replying to three people saying the same thing.
If the philosophy would result in forced non-reproduction (which it would), then it's genocide. There's just no two ways about it. It doesn't matter if in theory such and such is not supposed to happen, what matters is what would happen.
33654
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:17:21 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.
But my point is one could argue the faster humanity is destroyed the less net suffering there would be.
33655
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:15:59 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.
Poor analogy again my friend. 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.
33656
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:13:32 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.
33657
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:11:07 PM »
Humanity is not an ideology Natalism is.
Learn what a no true scotsman fallacy is. I never made one.
]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?
Right, that was my point. And yes, you made a no true Scotsman fallacy. There will always be a violent group in an ideology, especially one that encourages people not to do things. Why? To enforce babies not being born.
33658
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:08:55 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.
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?
33659
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:06:36 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.
That children should not be born. To me? That's vague enough for people to enforce this by any means necessary.
33660
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:05:37 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.
Of course you "can't". You're biased beyond all reason.
Pages: 1 ... 112011211122 11231124 ... 1397
|
Show Posts