Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'll just say that you (Braunwyn) are generally emblematic of what I hate about America. Decently intelligent, self-righteous, "successful" person with way too much self-assurance...you've done well to fit the mold, daughter.
This is more assuming. You don't know me. Hate your filters because they skew pretty hard.
A thought-experiment that I have seen advanced regarding the required mindset: if there were a button that, if pressed, would instantaneously and painlessly wink the entire human race (yourself included) out of existence, and you knew it, and had the opportunity to press it, would you do so without hesitation?
In other words, do you regard the human experiment as such a self-evidently ghastly abomination that you would consider the instantaneous cessation of all human suffering the most altruistic conceivable act? Would this be true even if it were contrary to the will of most of those humans? Would this be true even if you would also put a stop to all happiness, all fulfillment, all hope? Even though you would interrupt, not just the unremitting suffering of Calcutta street beggars and Soviet gulag prisoners, but the happy explorations of little babies in affluent nations, the lovemaking of young lovers, the blissful serenity of advanced meditators?
If there was a button to instantaneously sterilize the entire human race I would press it without hesitation. Why? I simply don't need to feel sorry for potential happy lives. Do we feel sorry for every sperm cell that fails to become a child ?We don't. Even if we could bring trillions of children into life we still have reduced non-existence only minimally. Non-existence is infinite. It's impossible to bring every child into life. Does it make sense to regret the non-existence of the non-existent? Does it make sense to regret the absence of life in every remote inhabitated island, in every planet in this universe where abiogenesis didn't occur?
The absence of benefit for the non-existent is not harmful. The non-existent is not harmed by not having benefit. On other hand, the presence of suffering is harmful for the existent. I feel sorry for every child in the world who is suffering right now. I feel sorry for every child who is starving, being bullied, tortured, feeling pain, suffering from cancer... It makes sense to regret their existence. There's a real need to eliminate their suffering right now. If there was such button, I'd sure press it.
The absence of benefit for the non-existent is not harmful. The non-existent is not harmed by not having benefit. On other hand, the presence of suffering is harmful for the existent. I feel sorry for every child in the world who is suffering right now. I feel sorry for every child who is starving, being bullied, tortured, feeling pain, suffering from cancer... It makes sense to regret their existence. There's a real need to eliminate their suffering right now. If there was such button, I'd sure press it.
Given that there is no such button, but instead actions you can take to alleviate some of this suffering and even eliminate it (donate to charities, volunteer, become a cancer research scientist, work in social services, etc), do you have a plan to contribute beyond telling people on the Internet to not procreate? Just curious.
This is more assuming. You don't know me. Hate your filters because they skew pretty hard.
Braunwyn,
No we don't know you. I don't think the problem here is Matt's filters. My guess is many antinatalists agree with Matt's assertion because I also thought you were self rightious. Now I not so sure, you might be just like me a person with poor communication skills who often gets misunderstood. I think the problem might be your tone. Whatever you are trying to say is getting ignored by most antinatalists except by Pope Fracis (Mordant) who is way too smart and unconfrontational to let emotions cloud his rationality. I think your tone comes across as aggressive and offensive at times. You also are not inmune to making the same mistakes you accuse others of like saying Nill's parents fail her/him or assuming some people must be suffering from depression. Remember when assumptions were made about the reasons why you had children? Don't you think those situations are similar?
The way you tell them to "get help" or question their logic sound like you are belittling them. We know many people use armchair psychology to dismiss what others have to say. No one here is asking for psychological counseling so it comes across as condesceding. When you imply others are dumb which you done several times the doors get closed. Whatever you are trying to say is not getting across because people are in defense mode and emotional. Maybe you will say "that's their problem" but it is our problem too if our intention is have others listen to our point of view. Most people are not like Mordant, most of us are mortal and very emotional.
I hope you don't get offended by my post. Like I said I have the same problem too and have to deal with this confrontational demon every day.
No we don't know you. I don't think the problem here is Matt's filters.
Matt is making some pretty big assumptions as he's drawing on my location and class to apply stereotypes as he understands them. In reality he does not know. He cannot.
Quote:
My guess is many antinatalists agree with Matt's assertion because I also thought you were self rightious.
I don't deny being self righteous, but I am only so about myself. I am convinced that I know what is good for me and my family. I am also convinced that the vast majority, and especially those in this thread, do not know what is good for me and my family. I don't feel a need to apologize for that or to be embarrassed about it. With that said, given what self-righteous actually means (moral superiority) and it's the antinatalists pointing fingers outward in this thread and then there is me stating nobody can speak morally for another, I'll have to say that you guys are pretty full of shyte with that particular charge.
Or, do me a favor and tell me how I have that backwards. Show me where I have given any hint of my own moral superiority over you or anyone else in this thread.
Quote:
Now I not so sure, you might be just like me a person with poor communication skills who often gets misunderstood. I think the problem might be your tone. Whatever you are trying to say is getting ignored by most antinatalists except by Pope Fracis (Mordant) who is way too smart and unconfrontational to let emotions cloud his rationality. I think your tone comes across as aggressive and offensive at times.
I don't deny ineffective communication skills on my part. I don't write well, never have. And sure, I can be aggressive, although my philosophy is to meet whoever I'm conversing with in their playing field. Further, tone is two sided online. You don't really know my tone. You assume it and given that I tend to post while on my phone (not now) I usually don't add sugar because it's too much of a PITA.
Given that I'm conversing with people who would like to see and end to human existence it's ironic that I am not soft enough for a more pleasurable conversation?
Quote:
You also are not inmune to making the same mistakes you accuse others of like saying Nill's parents fail her/him or assuming some people must be suffering from depression. Remember when assumptions were made about the reasons why you had children? Don't you think those situations are similar?
I agree that I should not blindly assume depression on the part of one who wishes he did not exist, but I would bet good money it were the case. Pessimistic thinking is typical in depression even when a person does not know they are depressed according to how we define depression. I'm simply not throwing it out there as one of many available rocks to throw. And if you look at the posting history of some of the regulars in this thread you will find admission of depression, which is not surprising. So no, that is not the same as assuming that parents have children for recreation. My child is not a game of bad mitten. My point is valid and likely. The recreation assertion is just absurd. I don't know how you find it comparable.
Quote:
The way you tell them to "get help" or question their logic sound like you are belittling them.
Of course I'm going to question logic that another human being is attempting to apply to all of us. Again, their logic applies to their lives, their worldviews, their value systems (I guess), but not to mine. That is not belittling. That is a truth.
Quote:
We know many people use armchair psychology to dismiss what others have to say. No one here is asking for psychological counseling so it comes across as condesceding. When you imply others are dumb which you done several times the doors get closed. Whatever you are trying to say is not getting across because people are in defense mode and emotional. Maybe you will say "that's their problem" but it is our problem too if our intention is have others listen to our point of view. Most people are not like Mordant, most of us are mortal and very emotional.
I hope you don't get offended by my post. Like I said I have the same problem too and have to deal with this confrontational demon every day.
I never implied that anyone was dumb. I, instead, stated that nobody here is intelligent enough to rule over me or anyone else except for themselves. For what it's worth I most certainly include myself in that space. I don't have the wherewithal to tell you how you should live, what you should believe, how you should temper your moral compass. I don't know your life and experiences well enough, or at all, to even begin to think of it. But, that is exactly what antinatalists think of themselves and they wish to put their thumb down over all of humanity. Am I wrong?
I'm chuckling at the irony of the resident pedantic drunkard (self admitted) belittling a seemingly smart and emotionally healthy working mom.
It is funny when these types are more concerned with the future harm inflicted upon people they will never know in places they'll never see in times they won't experience at the expense of, oh you know, a few things they can do here and now to reduce actual harm. But that's just too mundane now isn't it?
Suffering is a part of existence and being born has the potential to cause suffering. Hence, it would be immoral for a person that is aware of potential suffering to create life. Harm doesn't exist in the moment parents decide to procreate, but it will.
Suffering is an objective and inevitable condition of life, independent of its cause. All future net harm is prevented by avoiding procreation.
If harm makes life not worth living is for the potential child to judge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Braunwyn
That real possibility was a problem for your parents to contend with, not mine. Why should I not exist because some other person has been harmed? There is no reasonable argument for it other than your personal preferences and that's not good enough. You need to bring more to the table.
How do you predict what will come out of procreation.? You could have caused severe harm or still will cause severe harm to your daughter by have been brought her into existence. How do you know what will happen to a child? The only way to avoid this risk is by not procreating. Once you risk to create life and harm happens it's already too late. For not knowing what will come out of it, that you have the obligation to prevent it.
Why should people have the right to gamble with their children's life?
Suffering is a part of existence and being born has the potential to cause suffering. Hence, it would be immoral for a person that is aware of potential suffering to create life. Harm doesn't exist in the moment parents decide to procreate, but it will.
Now we're just going in circles. Why is suffering automatically immoral? So, when a physician gives a cancer patient Chemo, because the patient wants to live, that patient is going to suffer for taking the therapy. Obviously, the therapy is not immoral just because it causes a certain amount of suffering. You cannot say all suffering is immoral. You are just wrong on that.
Quote:
Suffering is an objective and inevitable condition of life, independent of its cause. All future net harm is prevented by avoiding procreation.
Suffering is not objective.
Quote:
How do you predict what will come out of procreation.? You could have caused severe harm or still will cause severe harm to your daughter by have been brought her into existence. How do you know what will happen to a child? The only way to avoid this risk is by not procreating. Once you risk to create life and harm happens it's already too late. For not knowing what will come out of it, that you have the obligation to prevent it.
Choosing not to avoid risk is not immoral. Choosing to avoid risk is not moral either.
Quote:
Why should people have the right to gamble with their children's life?
That right exists by the nature of our being. You might not like the idea of our reality, but that is the reality. It's the human condition. You are essentially stating that the human condition is immoral by loose standards created by humans. This is the 100th time around the merry-go-round and it's still nonsense.
Anyhow, I do want to comment that Ohio has it right many pages back. That was a spot on post. It's not harm, it's frustration. The angst of youth!
It is funny when these types are more concerned with the future harm inflicted upon people they will never know in places they'll never see in times they won't experience at the expense of, oh you know, a few things they can do here and now to reduce actual harm. But that's just too mundane now isn't it?
Matt is making some pretty big assumptions as he's drawing on my location and class to apply stereotypes as he understands them. In reality he does not know. He cannot.
I don't deny being self righteous, but I am only so about myself. I am convinced that I know what is good for me and my family. I am also convinced that the vast majority, and especially those in this thread, do not know what is good for me and my family. I don't feel a need to apologize for that or to be embarrassed about it. With that said, given what self-righteous actually means (moral superiority) and it's the antinatalists pointing fingers outward in this thread and then there is me stating nobody can speak morally for another, I'll have to say that you guys are pretty full of shyte with that particular charge.
Or, do me a favor and tell me how I have that backwards. Show me where I have given any hint of my own moral superiority over you or anyone else in this thread.
I don't deny ineffective communication skills on my part. I don't write well, never have. And sure, I can be aggressive, although my philosophy is to meet whoever I'm conversing with in their playing field. Further, tone is two sided online. You don't really know my tone. You assume it and given that I tend to post while on my phone (not now) I usually don't add sugar because it's too much of a PITA.
Given that I'm conversing with people who would like to see and end to human existence it's ironic that I am not soft enough for a more pleasurable conversation?
I agree that I should not blindly assume depression on the part of one who wishes he did not exist, but I would bet good money it were the case. Pessimistic thinking is typical in depression even when a person does not know they are depressed according to how we define depression. I'm simply not throwing it out there as one of many available rocks to throw. And if you look at the posting history of some of the regulars in this thread you will find admission of depression, which is not surprising. So no, that is not the same as assuming that parents have children for recreation. My child is not a game of bad mitten. My point is valid and likely. The recreation assertion is just absurd. I don't know how you find it comparable.
Of course I'm going to question logic that another human being is attempting to apply to all of us. Again, their logic applies to their lives, their worldviews, their value systems (I guess), but not to mine. That is not belittling. That is a truth.
I never implied that anyone was dumb. I, instead, stated that nobody here is intelligent enough to rule over me or anyone else except for themselves. For what it's worth I most certainly include myself in that space. I don't have the wherewithal to tell you how you should live, what you should believe, how you should temper your moral compass. I don't know your life and experiences well enough, or at all, to even begin to think of it. But, that is exactly what antinatalists think of themselves and they wish to put their thumb down over all of humanity. Am I wrong?
And no, I am not offended by your post at all.
Yes in my opinion you are very biased and wrong. Here you are psychoanalizing people and telling them how unintelligent and depressed they are, telling them to get help and you don 't think those judgments and condescending advice is the same thing as telling them how to live their lives?
You are extremely biased. You give your self too many breaks while holding very high standards for others. "Oh I made assumptions but". No you made assumptions and they were condecending and hurtful. I am not asking you to apologize so stop that. That is not the point, my point is I find your tone hurtful. The way you treat other posters bothers me because I don't like when people belittle others. You do ehatever you want with that information but stop suggesting I want you to apologize. What I want you is to realize how others feel about your posts and how inneffective your style is. But you are too biased to realize that.
You were attacking specific posters while Nill was making broad generalizations. You do not represent every person who has children in this planet. If someone makes a generalization about the reason people have kids he is not just talking about you so what it's true for you might not be true for the whole population.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
