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 ... 112111221123 11241125 ... 1397
33661
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:04:48 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.
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.
I'm afraid you can't. Humanity is not an ideology and can't be dismissed because we're not going anywhere. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/no-true-scotsman
33662
« on: February 04, 2015, 04:02:59 PM »
But the majority of the followers are peaceful. Irrelevant, Islamic propositions are clearly violent.
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?
It isn't irrelevant, because just like a supposed mainstream anti natalism, the majority of followers would be peaceful but there's always that violent minority. Still, this is again a terrible analogy and the fact you're resorting to them proves how weak the ideology and your argument is. Again, this doesn't make sense. I'm talking about the "tenets" of anti natalism.
33663
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:59:27 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).
a lot of people have to do a great many things - they don't. You think humans would behave differently because...?
33664
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:58:30 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 Manhattan Project killed hundreds of thousands of people.
Poor analogy.
33665
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:57:27 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.
But the majority of the followers are peaceful. Whether or not we agree with their society, they don't all walk around with AK's and suicide vests. If the suicide bomber killed others in the name of Jainism, I very well could.
33666
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:54:39 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.
If the philosophy would be genocidal in practice, it's a genocidal philosophy.
33667
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:53:37 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.
And according to Muslims, Islam is a religion of peace. If you're saying the natalist minority would react violent, then, well, that kind of makes them the assholes, doesn't it?
I didn't say that at all.
33668
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:51:31 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
If the last one were to ever become mainstream the first two would follow.
33669
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:48:42 PM »
people would resist So that automatically means that people like me would resort to violence, right?
Enjoy being wrong.
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?
33670
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:46:33 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.
When you stop advocating for the destruction of humanity and all other life in the universe, you can be the good guy. I promise.
33671
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:44:53 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.
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.
33672
« on: February 04, 2015, 03:26:40 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.
So, would voluntary extinction count as a form of genocide?
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.
33673
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:35:33 PM »
Yeah yeah ISIS is the embodiment of evil and all that jazz, but let's not get caught in the hype. This happens every single day in Africa, Mexico, South America, China. Yet we only seem to care when it's near oil.
I agree that people don't care as much as they should about those instances, but it's quite clear they don't represent the same moral-cultural threat that ISIS do.
Don't they? There's people running around massacring people in villages in Africa and nobody cares. When ISIS starts taking over oil fields, they're on the news 24/7.
33675
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:16:49 PM »
What"re you talking about?
END YOUR LIFE
33676
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:15:54 PM »
I don"t even know what you"re talking about.
EUGH FUCKING MONSTER GO HAVE SOME "MAYONNAISE" MOTHERFUCKER
33677
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:15:06 PM »
33678
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:14:20 PM »
I don't really care if it's incorrect or not to be honest :|
I use quotations when it's a direct quote, and apostrophes when it's more of a paraphrase.
Or quotations when I need more of this kind of emphasis
KILL YOURSELF I O L U L R S E L F
33680
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:09:11 PM »
'op is a faget'
MOVE IT BACK TO SERIOUS I HATE YOU
33681
« on: February 04, 2015, 02:06:42 PM »
People using apostrophes instead of quotes.
No motherfucker, they're not the same thing.
33682
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:53:45 PM »
Those rosy cheeks deserve a post.
YOU FUCKING SON OF A BITCH I WAS NEGOTIATING BOOBS
33683
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:53:05 PM »
"Very well I'm going to post my boobs" or "Very well, we're done here"? Ah, so that's how things are. Very well.
A picture of your boobs would motivate me to find the screencap.
Knowhatimsayin
33684
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:47:11 PM »
A picture of your boobs would motivate me to find the screencap. Knowhatimsayin Well, if someone has it please then share. I mean, you worked hard to keep mine around to show it off, I am sure you like Cheat at least as much.
Somebody screencapped it.
33685
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:37:44 PM »
Somebody screencapped it. Oh well, guess I missed the opportunity.
Really? Never saw his picture.
It's just that Cheat looks like a girl.
It was in Anarchy.
I'm guessing he's a trans.
33686
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:37:17 PM »
Not sure what you are referring to. The colors? I felt that I should be consistent with the staff colors. (These are also the default admin colors)
It's just that Cheat looks like a girl.
I dunno if I'd say girl. Thirteen, yes, but not female.
Nah he's pretty feminine. Like a boyish lesbian.
33687
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:32:47 PM »
Really? Never saw his picture.
It's just that Cheat looks like a girl.
It was in Anarchy. I'm guessing he's a trans.
33688
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:31:21 PM »
Not sure what you are referring to. The colors? I felt that I should be consistent with the staff colors. (These are also the default admin colors)
It's just that Cheat looks like a girl.
33689
« on: February 04, 2015, 01:29:22 PM »
Not having kids = Genocide.
K.
Telling a species to stop reproducing is pretty much genocide, yes. Who are you to decide whether they should exist or not?
33690
« on: February 04, 2015, 11:58:48 AM »
...what new rule?
What new rule?
New rule?
OH BABY A TRIPLE
Pages: 1 ... 112111221123 11241125 ... 1397
|
Show Posts
