Not wanting to have kids isn't the same as being an anti-natalist. If you go out of your way to get upset at people having kids, I have to assume that's a result of privilege.
Took me a day, but I just realized none of what you listed were examples of a lack of privilege. Both people who want kids and people who don't will get nagged to have them. The rapist probably doesn't target someone for their politics, any woman they can take advantage of they will. Past that, you have not in any way proven that the subset of people who don't want kids that are antinatalists are from less privileged backgrounds. I've met women who don't want kids, but none that are anti-natalist before. Nor have I met someone lower class who identified with the later, but very often I have with the former. The only people I've met who strongly identify with anti natalism are well-off men. Now, I won't pretend I've met every single person who is antinstalist. I don't know your gender or background. But from what I've seen, it is the case that people who arrive at this idea that all life is suffering and must be ended come from a privileged background. Your fundamental idea that all life is suffering is also bad.
The rapist probably doesn’t target someone for their politics, any woman they can take advantage of they will.
i was specifically referring to corrective rape, which is related to someone being a lesbian, or the wrong religion, or voluntarily childless, or whatever
Both people who want kids and people who don’t will get nagged to have them.
people who say they don't want kids get it worse. that's why childfree safe spaces popped up on the internet.
Past that, you have not in any way proven that the subset of people who don’t want kids that are antinatalists are from less privileged backgrounds.
it's me, jerk. And there are plenty of other people who become antinatalists because of the suffering they experienced. you don't have to be a malthusian ecofascist or whatever the fuck negative thing you weird forced-lifers associate antinatalism with to see that living necessarily means suffering, and that a hypothetical person who never exists isn't deprived of anything and the logic follows from there.
Your fundamental idea that all life is suffering is also bad.
show me a person who has literally never suffered.
I'm not a forced lifer, I don't think you should have to have kids and would agree without a lot of people in the world today shouldn't have had the kids they did. It should be your choice alone based on whether you personally want kids and feel you can support them. However, the idea that every single birth is a bad thing I cannot agree with in the slightest. I cannot show you the person who never suffered, but I doubt you can show me the person who has never once felt happiness. Moreover, a hypothetical nonexistent person has not been deprived of nothing, they've been deprived of everything. Every single experience one can have in their life is meaningful and beautiful, from the heights of joy to the depths of sorrow and the middlings of boredom, this is all a unique and wonderful. There are experiences I would prefer not to have compared to other experiences, but between them and experiencing nothing I would always choose them. The hypothetical person can also lead to weird ideas like "what about all the children someone isn't having" or "what about the hypothetical me after I die." Bottom line, don't have kids if you don't want to or can't and I don't care either way, but once you have the philosophical underpinning that living is bad I think that's seriously wrong.
I cannot show you the person who never suffered, but I doubt you can show me the person who has never once felt happiness.
ah-ha! What makes you think suffering and happiness are exchangeable like that? What gives you the right to decide for others that any amount of happiness is worth any amount of suffering? 100% of people will suffer a non-zero amount, therefore making more people exist is immoral. Two people had sex in the 80s and now i have to work and pay bills, as the saying goes. I didn't sign up for this, nobody did.
and no, people who never exist cannot be deprived of anything, because they don't exist. Some nonesense like increasing total happiness is irrelevant in the face of inducing someone to suffer.
If happiness doesn't matter, neither does suffering. I can reverse ever one of your statements and it makes just as much logical sense, who are you to decide any amount of suffering makes any amount of happiness not worth It? You've arbitrarily decided one of two feelings matters more than the other. Or i could put a positive value on suffering. There's no reason not to. It feels bad, but so does exercise, both can help you grow or just break you. My main point was that experiences themselves, good or bad, matter, and you've decided to ignore that so you can gotcha me on an aside about your own opinion. Also, you do decide to be here. From the day you understood what death was and had the capacity to bring it about for yourself, you've been able to choose not to exist. Something seems to matter enough that you don't. I'm happy for that, life is beautiful and I'm glad you choose it each and every day.
the second half of your lower response has literally nothing to do with the first. A hypothetical person has been deprived of literally everything, you've imagined someone you could give life, family, a home, food, joy, and decided not to. As I myself stated, I think the hypothetical person argument is not worth discussing, because of all the possibilities it opens up that are nonsense. I'm creating infinite hypothetical people every minute I'm not putting an egg and some sperm together.
don’t punch me in the face and try to buy me off you fucking forced life freak.
What has been really fun this whole discussion is you just ignoring most of what I say so you can do your anti-natalist greatest hits collection. I agree with you that society's views on reproduction are messed up, I am against anyone being forced or pressured to have kids by government or family or any other institution. I don't think everyone needs to have kids or that their life is incomplete without it. I think if you want kids you should go for it, because existence is not as awful as you paint it. My fundamental philosophical underpinning(which i have restated twice and you have decided to never once even pretend to interact with) is that experiencing anything is worthwhile, and any life that does exist is meaningful in this way. You really really wanted to talk about happiness versus suffering, and even there did not engage with the point I made but the point you wanted me to make. Your arguments are still bad, because your obligations are relative to your society, and in our society you are obligated to try to make at least three kinds of people happy: your spouse, your friends, and your children. If we wanted to engage with my point, which was your measurement of a life, not a parent's obligations in it, you've not in any way shown suffering to be different than happiness. I'm not engaging past this, have a long and happy life.
I am against anyone being forced or pressured to have kids by government or family or any other institution.
it's not about that part of it, it's about that when somebody decides to have a kid they're forcing that person to live
experiencing anything is worthwhile,
fuuuuuuck you. tell that to people who have horrible things done to them. tell that to assault victims. tell that to people with horrible chronic pain. You disgusting piece of shit torture apologist.
I wonder what ideology comes from thinking "people with chronic pain should never have been born." I personally like to tell people who are struggling with immense pain "I'm happy you're still alive" but sure go ahead say they'd be better off dead. You are a bad person, and I would never allow you to speak to anyone who is suffering.
.” I personally like to tell people who are struggling with immense pain “I’m happy you’re still alive” but sure go ahead say they’d be better off dead.
I would rather not be suffering you insensitive clod.
why is it so hard for you dorks to understand not being born isn't the same as being alive and dying?
Not wanting to have kids isn't the same as being an anti-natalist. If you go out of your way to get upset at people having kids, I have to assume that's a result of privilege.
antinatalists are a subset of "don't want kids", and we receive the same harassment and disdain.
if you go out of your way to get upset at people
having kidssubjecting people to harm, i have to assume that's a result of privilegeTook me a day, but I just realized none of what you listed were examples of a lack of privilege. Both people who want kids and people who don't will get nagged to have them. The rapist probably doesn't target someone for their politics, any woman they can take advantage of they will. Past that, you have not in any way proven that the subset of people who don't want kids that are antinatalists are from less privileged backgrounds. I've met women who don't want kids, but none that are anti-natalist before. Nor have I met someone lower class who identified with the later, but very often I have with the former. The only people I've met who strongly identify with anti natalism are well-off men. Now, I won't pretend I've met every single person who is antinstalist. I don't know your gender or background. But from what I've seen, it is the case that people who arrive at this idea that all life is suffering and must be ended come from a privileged background. Your fundamental idea that all life is suffering is also bad.
i was specifically referring to corrective rape, which is related to someone being a lesbian, or the wrong religion, or voluntarily childless, or whatever
people who say they don't want kids get it worse. that's why childfree safe spaces popped up on the internet.
it's me, jerk. And there are plenty of other people who become antinatalists because of the suffering they experienced. you don't have to be a malthusian ecofascist or whatever the fuck negative thing you weird forced-lifers associate antinatalism with to see that living necessarily means suffering, and that a hypothetical person who never exists isn't deprived of anything and the logic follows from there.
show me a person who has literally never suffered.
I'm not a forced lifer, I don't think you should have to have kids and would agree without a lot of people in the world today shouldn't have had the kids they did. It should be your choice alone based on whether you personally want kids and feel you can support them. However, the idea that every single birth is a bad thing I cannot agree with in the slightest. I cannot show you the person who never suffered, but I doubt you can show me the person who has never once felt happiness. Moreover, a hypothetical nonexistent person has not been deprived of nothing, they've been deprived of everything. Every single experience one can have in their life is meaningful and beautiful, from the heights of joy to the depths of sorrow and the middlings of boredom, this is all a unique and wonderful. There are experiences I would prefer not to have compared to other experiences, but between them and experiencing nothing I would always choose them. The hypothetical person can also lead to weird ideas like "what about all the children someone isn't having" or "what about the hypothetical me after I die." Bottom line, don't have kids if you don't want to or can't and I don't care either way, but once you have the philosophical underpinning that living is bad I think that's seriously wrong.
ah-ha! What makes you think suffering and happiness are exchangeable like that? What gives you the right to decide for others that any amount of happiness is worth any amount of suffering? 100% of people will suffer a non-zero amount, therefore making more people exist is immoral. Two people had sex in the 80s and now i have to work and pay bills, as the saying goes. I didn't sign up for this, nobody did.
and no, people who never exist cannot be deprived of anything, because they don't exist. Some nonesense like increasing total happiness is irrelevant in the face of inducing someone to suffer.
If happiness doesn't matter, neither does suffering. I can reverse ever one of your statements and it makes just as much logical sense, who are you to decide any amount of suffering makes any amount of happiness not worth It? You've arbitrarily decided one of two feelings matters more than the other. Or i could put a positive value on suffering. There's no reason not to. It feels bad, but so does exercise, both can help you grow or just break you. My main point was that experiences themselves, good or bad, matter, and you've decided to ignore that so you can gotcha me on an aside about your own opinion. Also, you do decide to be here. From the day you understood what death was and had the capacity to bring it about for yourself, you've been able to choose not to exist. Something seems to matter enough that you don't. I'm happy for that, life is beautiful and I'm glad you choose it each and every day.
the second half of your lower response has literally nothing to do with the first. A hypothetical person has been deprived of literally everything, you've imagined someone you could give life, family, a home, food, joy, and decided not to. As I myself stated, I think the hypothetical person argument is not worth discussing, because of all the possibilities it opens up that are nonsense. I'm creating infinite hypothetical people every minute I'm not putting an egg and some sperm together.
because causing someone suffering or not has a very clear moral difference while causing happiness or not is whatever.
we have an obligation to eachother not to cause harm, we have no obligation to try to make somebody happy.
don't punch me in the face and try to buy me off you fucking forced life freak.
What has been really fun this whole discussion is you just ignoring most of what I say so you can do your anti-natalist greatest hits collection. I agree with you that society's views on reproduction are messed up, I am against anyone being forced or pressured to have kids by government or family or any other institution. I don't think everyone needs to have kids or that their life is incomplete without it. I think if you want kids you should go for it, because existence is not as awful as you paint it. My fundamental philosophical underpinning(which i have restated twice and you have decided to never once even pretend to interact with) is that experiencing anything is worthwhile, and any life that does exist is meaningful in this way. You really really wanted to talk about happiness versus suffering, and even there did not engage with the point I made but the point you wanted me to make. Your arguments are still bad, because your obligations are relative to your society, and in our society you are obligated to try to make at least three kinds of people happy: your spouse, your friends, and your children. If we wanted to engage with my point, which was your measurement of a life, not a parent's obligations in it, you've not in any way shown suffering to be different than happiness. I'm not engaging past this, have a long and happy life.
it's not about that part of it, it's about that when somebody decides to have a kid they're forcing that person to live
fuuuuuuck you. tell that to people who have horrible things done to them. tell that to assault victims. tell that to people with horrible chronic pain. You disgusting piece of shit torture apologist.
I wonder what ideology comes from thinking "people with chronic pain should never have been born." I personally like to tell people who are struggling with immense pain "I'm happy you're still alive" but sure go ahead say they'd be better off dead. You are a bad person, and I would never allow you to speak to anyone who is suffering.
I would rather not be suffering you insensitive clod.
why is it so hard for you dorks to understand not being born isn't the same as being alive and dying?