Is Richard Dawkins calling for genocide?

[dontsnitch]

2 hours bro. Any cliffs?

Dude is one of the leading proponents of antinatalism which I saw you reference, thought you might find it interesting.

Aside from the discussion itself, I really like how these two interact, as if it's actually possible to disagree and still argue in good faith.

It's hard to sum up these types of discussions, but it's basically an in depth look at antinatalism with some good insights from both sides.

 

[Jorge Luis Borges]

"Abortion to avoid birth defects is not about eugenics. It’s about the avoidance of individual human suffering."

Attempting to eliminate human suffering by eliminating human beings is the very essence of eugenics.

 

[meauneau]

Cliffs: Nothing agreed to coming into this world so kill everything EXCEPT YOURSELF with complete justification.

If you think this is my position then either you are very stupid or just dishonest.

"where they will suffer, we are doing something wrong. Therefore we should not bring people into life."
- this is an axiom of yours, this is not based on any fact. It is your opinion. It is your faith. It is something you have no evidence for.

You really are stupid. This is part of an argument which begins from your premise that life is about suffering (if you are TS). I added another assumption that is accepted by everyone, namely, that suffering is bad. The conclusion follows logically from the premises. You obviously don't know that an argument or a rebuttal are.

I am an existentialist. It is kind of hard to pin down what the fuck that means. But, I think the central tenant means something like "an existentialist says that we do not say what we believe, but what we actually believe is what we act out".

Here's more evidence that you are not so bright. You can't even articulate what existentialism is. You claim to be hold a view which you cannot even form a coherent meaningful idea of in your mind.

So you have to see why your argument holds no water (as Marissa would day). No one is making you live. You chose to live. You chose the suffering and living a life you did not consent to.

So you are saying that my argument is deductively invalid? Where is the error? Or maybe that the argument is unsound? Do you know the difference between validity and soundness in arguments? You obviously don't.

Next, you are being illogical. Nothing created can consent to being created. If your argument is that things have to give consent to being giving existence before existing then you are invalidating everything living or dead in this universe.
And anyone who thinks this is a POS that would have their "justification" for murdering all living things. This is what the Columbine kids thought.

Just like you can't comprehend even the main ideas of existentialism you can't understand a simple arguments on an internet forum.

I pity you. Either because you actually believe what you posted or because you are intellectually dishonest enough to think no one with an IQ over 83 would see right through it.

I never claimed I accept the argument. I just put it there to spark a discussion about antinatalism and how it is relevant to the topic.

My judgement on you.

I might be under 83, but there is no way you are above 83.

PS I like your use of the word "therefore" in your attempt to not sound pitiably stupid.

People live suffer, people can end their lives anytime they want, if the people who suffer choose not to off themselves, then life is worth living even with suffering.

Only a child thinks life is about being happy.

I can see why you think the way you do. With a mind like yours life is nothing but suffering lol.

 

[meauneau]

Dude is one of the leading proponents of antinatalism which I saw you reference, thought you might find it interesting.

Aside from the discussion itself, I really like how these two interact, as if it's actually possible to disagree and still argue in good faith.

It's hard to sum up these types of discussions, but it's basically an in depth look at antinatalism with some good insights from both sides.

Just saw it was with Benatar, I will watch later. I have read his articles and others referring to him. I kind of agree with him (some premises I accept) but there is something I hold which doesn't let me accept his conclusion.

 

[dontsnitch]

Just saw it was with Benatar, I will watch later. I have read his articles and others referring to him. I kind of agree with him (some premises I accept) but there is something I hold which doesn't let me accept his conclusion.

Yeah, I feel the same way, he makes some arguably strong points along the way, but at the end of the day it's hard to accept his conclusion. Fun topic though.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I am not a big fan of Ben Shapiro, but I completely agree with him on abortion:

 

[KnightTemplar]

I wonder if there's a way that we could arrange for this thread to be anally raped on its way to the dump.

Anally raped, you say?

 

[WTF2008]

You went too far at the end there.
It is pretty crazy that THE catholic preist is pushing this.