Too bad you have literally zero evidence to support that claim.

To disagree with that statement would be to concede the notion that all the good in the world is balanced out perfectly by all the bad in the world. Do you honestly believe that there are equal parts good and bad in the world?

Plus, there is no rule anywhere saying you must enjoy a perfect life.

If you steal all your parent's money to gamble it away at the casino, you better be 100% sure you come back with more money than you brought in.

100%.

Not 99%.

100%.

Otherwise, it's completely unjustified.

This is why I didn't send him a PM. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

Gotcha.

Quote from: Snake on June 22, 2015, 03:55:47 PM

Oh, okay. Yeah, if that's the case, I agree. But what would constitute a life that would "suck"? If you've been, in your opinion, a good father to a child, would it not follow that things would stay the same?

The same as what? Sorry, I don't quite follow the question.

If you've created a good (as it could be) life for the child, and then realise "Oh shit, having children is wrong", would it not follow that you allow things to stay the same between you and the child?

I guess what I'm saying is, how would you know if you're creating a good life for your child?

Quote from: aTALLmidget on June 22, 2015, 04:10:15 PM

Too bad you have literally zero evidence to support that claim.

To disagree with that statement would be to concede the notion that all the good in the world is balanced out perfectly by all the bad in the world. Do you honestly believe that there are equal parts good and bad in the world?

Absolutely, the only reason people are obsessed with the notion that the world is bad is because negativity gets more attention than positivity. For example, 70% of people believe the world is more violent and dangerous today than it was around 40 to 50 years ago, despite the fact that violent crime has decreased 40% since then. But why do people think this? Because media coverage of crimes has increased 130%. How many times do you see them report on great news, at when they do, how long do they stay on topic? Usually they're 30-45 second segments, then its on to the bad news.

Quote

Plus, there is no rule anywhere saying you must enjoy a perfect life.

If you steal all your parent's money to gamble it away at the casino, you better be 100% sure you come back with more money than you brought in.

100%.

Not 99%.

100%.

Otherwise, it's completely unjustified.

LOL. Gambling =/= life.

This is why I didn't send him a PM. ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)

ehh

i kinda resent that, tbh

it would be all well and good if you laid your hand in the discussion, but

hell

Off topic, but did you flunk out of Ramadan?

Quote from: Verbatim on June 22, 2015, 03:57:58 PM

hell

Off topic, but did you flunk out of Ramadan?

the profanity thing is just for sticklers, and "hell" isn't even that bad of a swear <.<

i've yet to drop any f-bombs or s-bombs or c-bombs, so
acknowledgement, plz

(i'm also still starving myself, of course)

Quote from: aTALLmidget on June 22, 2015, 04:36:16 PM

Sure, just ignore the fact that you're being misled by the media everyday.

I don't pay much heed to the media. What I look at is history. What you're telling me right now is that the Holocaust was justified, and I'm saying that you're absolutely incorrect.

Something tells me, though, even if you were to look at it from my perspective, you still wouldn't be able to see where I'm coming from. I hope I'm wrong.

What? Never did I anywhere say the Holocaust was justified. I have no clue where you're getting that idea.

Your perspective that the world is shit?

What? Never did I anywhere say the Holocaust was justified. I have no clue where you're getting that idea.

Your perspective that the world is shit?

If you think all the good and bad in the world is balanced out, then yes, you think the Holocaust was justified. I don't know what else that could possibly mean.

And yes. If you could just give me the benefit of the doubt for a moment.

Because I think things are balanced does NOT equal to thinking the Holocaust was justified. Get that pseudo bullshit outta here.

And of course I've had that perspective before, everyone does when they're young and naive. The more time goes on the more I learn the world isn't as shitty as so many try to make it out to be.

If the Holocaust wasn't justified, how could you think that the world is balanced? What do you base this assertion on?

And what I'm asking you is, if the world really is as terrible as I make it out to be, would you think it's justified to smother a newborn in order to prevent it from living in such a terrible place? That's what I'm asking. If your answer is no, why? If your answer is yes, then your problem lies not with me being okay with smothering a newborn, but with my opinion that the world is garbage.

And I'm not really interested in having the debate, at least right now, of whether the world is garbage.

Smothering the baby seems sorta contradictory.

I mean, giving a baby suffering to the point of death because of the potential suffering it would sustain later. I haven't read the books by those authors that could justify this in some form, but there's no guarantee that the baby will have a shitty life that warrants it's death pre-emptively.

Quote from: SuperIrish on June 22, 2015, 07:34:15 PM

Smothering the baby seems sorta contradictory.

I mean, giving a baby suffering to the point of death because of the potential suffering it would sustain later. I haven't read the books by those authors that could justify this in some form, but there's no guarantee that the baby will have a shitty life that warrants it's death pre-emptively.

The idea is that it should never have been conceived in the first place; it's really not much different than an abortion in my eyes. Obviously, there comes a point where killing another human being is unacceptable, but I don't think that, in this particular scenario, it has reached that point.

So is it already bad that she gave birth despite not following an anti-natalist stance until after she'd read into it?

Regardless of the smothering part.

Quote from: SuperIrish on June 22, 2015, 07:50:14 PM

So is it already bad that she gave birth despite not following an anti-natalist stance until after she'd read into it?

Regardless of the smothering part.

Basically, yeah. It doesn't even really take an anti-natalist stance to know that having kids is a bad idea.

And I'm just gonna reiterate that, once again, if it were me, I probably couldn't bring myself to do it.

Ok. Not really sure I agree with it, but at least I'm following the line of thought here, sorta.

I don't think many people could bring themselves to do it really. A Socio/Pyschopathic Anti-Natalist maybe.

Another question for Verb: if suffering is bad, but having children is also bad... is forced sterilization good?

In other words, is it ethical to kick a guy in the balls?

I mean, eventually, once the meme is spread within the next hundred or so years, force won't be necessary. The logic is gonna compel people. That's my prediction, at least. At that point, once half the nation is anti-natalist, we'll be able to discuss with each other methods to "combat" those individuals who still think it's okay to procreate through legislature. Gary already laid out a decent foundation for some possible legislature--perhaps you're familiar with his voucher system.

But anyway, yeah, in the meantime, kicking people in the balls will ultimately prove to be an inefficient method, because there's no guarantee it'll work, and if a good kick results in the testes producing defective sperm for an extended period of time, that actually might just exacerbate the problem, because now he's gonna have a bunch of defective children.

and i know "defective children" sounds mean
but forcing a defective child into existence? that's really mean

You think that many people will be anti-natalists within two generations?

"hundred or so"