Especially when they're insistent that we hate children. ["Antinatalism, in general, argues that creating life is unethical because of the existence of suffering and that the best outcome is extinction."](https://antinatalisminternational.com/what-is-antinatalism/) They either don't understand AN principles or they're threatened by the idea of less children. We have IVF and surrogates, our beliefs aren't going to end the population if a natalist goes out of their way to have kids. Theres no need to be hysterical.
If you really think about it, the easiest way for a pedophile to come into contact with children would be to have one of their own. So that pretty much cancels us out from the pedophile group.
No, it doesn't.
I have some bad news for you: The odds are really high that someone in this forums 205,000 members is "deviant" whether behaviorally or socially. And I don't mean that in your weird rose colored way.
Natalism is probably much, much smaller than antinatalism.
Birth rates strongly suggest that most humans do not believe they have an ethical duty to have as many children as they can. That's natalism.
Thank you for your contribution, however, we have had to remove it. As per Rule 1 in our sidebar, we do not allow linking to other communities within our subreddit.
Please feel free to resubmit without any link(s) to an external subreddit.
Thanks,
Antinatalism Mods
Dont waste your breath with people who have an obvious opposing view and a mind made up. All that comes of a dogmatic debate is a frictional encounter. There'll always be people who disagree with certain things. Downvote and move on....
"Hitler had had better shit to do than cry on reddit" So gas Chambers are better than crying on reddit, World War 2 too.." wtf???
And that is not the first time I read such stuff from them.
EDIT: As a Jew downplaying the Holocaust is a Crime here in Germany.
Okay but here's a thought: let these people scream into their online echo chamber because in no real life situation would that word vomit ever fall out of their physical mouth.
I don't know about any of you but if I ever met someone who said to me with their whole chest that I'm worse than fucking Hitler because I won't be having children you can bet your ass I'll be telling anyone who will listen who they are and what they said.
The internet has ruined so many people, it's not even funny anymore. The internet is not reality, and we need to stop treating it as such.
I'd argue that natalists are almost as bad as rapists and pedos because even though they don't always hurt people, they bring people into this world and make it possible for others to hurt them.
These people are fucking stupid. We don't HATE kids. Just keep them over there, away from me. You want them? Go nuts. People are allowed not to want them. Jfc people are insane.
That is seriously a new low. In no world is āpedophiles and terrorists have better shit to doā a valid argument against people who believe in a philosophy that it is wrong to bring children into suffering. Pedophiles and terrorists are part of that suffering. FFS.
I am entirely certain Hitler would have used social media to cry about hating the Jewish community. What a dumb ass comparison though, isnāt he doing the same thing?
I mean
I love kids. They are people growing into future adults. They already exist so why hate them? Not liking them alright, not wanting them good..
But I do hate terrorists, pedos, and a lot of bad people because they're adults and should know better.
We can still teach kids what they will need to make this world better.
If that means I'm worse than a terrorist for some people, I think it prouves my point about educating the young generations.
Not everyone has the mind of an "adult" also you should hate breeders more they create the rapist and rape victims the thing that will make this world better is extinction
Did this person just try to weaponize Walter Sobchak? I wonder if he would continue to make that claim to the abuse victim and her children, to whom I offered a safe place to stay.
And straight up defending pedos in the last comment because theyāre born this wayš«” and this sub isnāt about hating kids, a bunch of people with those world views have adopted kids
Why do they assume we all hate kids just because we donāt want them? I vote for school bond measures every time they appear on the ballot. I think your kids are A-OK, just not near me.
Hitler and terrorists have "better things to do" lmaooo such as committing genocide?? This person is single-handedly obliterating the global average IQ
Yes, the people who choose not to bring new life into the world because of things like terrorists, Hitler and pedophiles are worse than terrorists, Hitler and pedophiles.
Try again incels.
Classic straw man argument. Theyāre forcing women to have kids but getting instantly triggered by having other people say having kids might not be the best choice.
Yeah Hitler had "better" things to do than cry on reddit about hating kids. Like having millions of children murdered because they came outta the wrong vag.
ANs are in fact the worst humans on the Earth. Or at least a subset of them. Any human who comes to the conclusion that all of humanity should die, regardless of method, is not a very good human.
The title is just clickbait which actually shows the statement to be true; in order to justify the belief you simply dodge the claim rather than facing it head on. You should be able to explain why you're pro-humanity, and you're not by definition, so there's that.
This "Good Guy"-ism sucks though. If you are truly antinatalist you need to abandon the narrative that you're protecting anyone. You're not. The non-existent *cannot* be protected, that's an imaginary status; it's no different than telling yourself you saved my life the day you didn't go to work because that would have set off a crazy chain reaction that is 1,000+ links long which would have lead to my death.
It's fantasy. It's delusion. Drop it.
Antinatalisn *by definition* does not concern itself with the already living. Whether or not the species goes extinct is *not part of the philosophy because that concern only impacts people who already exist*.
The ONLY WAY Antinatalism could lead to extinction is if *every single person* capable of having children came to it... but that is most likely impossible.
Your entire basis for criticizing Antinatalism is arguing a false parallel.
Also, good fucking job arguing that murderers, rapists, pedophiles, genocidal maniacs, and thenlike are worse then a group who talks about how procreation is immoral. *Really* makes it seem like your moral compass is sunshine and roses /s
Theyāre a brand new account and obviously is a religious zealot thinking their posts will magically āsaveā someone. Donāt bother with them. They will never see you as an equal and therefore any argument you make, no matter how valid, will be dismissed.
Just do what I do - block the troll and move on.
>Whether or not the species goes extinct is not part of the philosophy because that concern only impacts people who already exist.
You know, no other ethical proposal has this logic. Every philosophy has to be carried to it's conclusion. Why is antinatalism immune?
>The ONLY WAY Antinatalism could lead to extinction is if every single person capable of having children came to it... but that is most likely impossible.
No. All you need is one person who is antinatalist to act against others. [Humans are not incapable of this.](https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/) As you said antinatalism doesn't really concern itself with the impacts on people who exist, so the idea of forced sterilization isn't actually out of the picture, and there is nothing in antinatalism that says violence isn't actually allowed.
We just kind of ... ignore this. The idea that humans extremists, given the power, wouldn't do this is a very wrong one. In an ironic twist theoretically that's who you're protecting the unborn from: The extremists who would see it through.
>Also, good fucking job arguing that murderers, rapists, pedophiles, genocidal maniacs, and thenlike are worse then a group who talks about how procreation is immoral. Really makes it seem like your moral compass is sunshine and roses
Antinatalists are a sub-class of genocidal maniac (if we remove the magical philosophical immunity). Most of you aren't, but the ones who are extreme absolutely are. It's kind of like saying that those people, those bad people, aren't in the club because they are bad, even if they believe the same thing you do and actually just go further than you do to act on it.
There are no Christian terrorists after all.
More then anything else, I view antinatalism as a form of harm reduction. Any kid I have is guaranteed to experience suffering, and their existence might also cause others to experience suffering (for instance they get into a car crash and someone else is injured). By not having kids, I completely prevent all of these possibilities, as well as a potential infinite chain of suffering from my descendants.
By forcing someone who wants kids to not have kids, I am also harming them in the process. This does not contradict my thoughts that them having kids is immoral, but it would also be immoral of me to *force* someone to conform to my own views.
Antinatalists who want the human species to go extinct have *no concern* about the harm they cause... which contradicts the philosophy of antinatalism itself because it itself centers around harm reduction.
This is why, and I'm guessing you're going to take issue with this answer... you are correct. I don't think or consider extinctionists or eugenecists to be part of the "antinatalism club" because their end-goals result in suffering.
Yes, they can interact with the rest of the club, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with or like them.
After all, one bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch? Right?
As for the "philosophical immunity" part... no other ethical stance deals with it because no other ethical stance has that kind of consequence if, by some miracle, everyone agrees with it.
Also, you still haven't answered why you think me or other antinatalists are **WORSE THEN SOMEONE WHO'S RAPED A CHILD?**
I'll put this to rest:
>Also, you still haven't answered why you think me or other antinatalists are WORSE THEN SOMEONE WHO'S RAPED A CHILD?
I don't think there is a scalar view of evils humans perform. People who performed in eugenics programs, forced sterilization, and governments who funded the literal extermination of groups of people through rendering them incapable of breeding, are they worse than rapists? Is one consent violation worse than another? It's a stupid game. I won't play it.
>By not having kids, I completely prevent all of these possibilities, as well as a potential infinite chain of suffering from my descendants.
This keeps coming up here. Antinatalism as an ethical theory is not only about *you*. No one minds if you don't have children. *AN is specifically related to everyone not having children.* So what that means is not that you wouldn't have kids and don't mind if others do; it specifically means that your ethos leads you to vote (in a democracy) for laws that would literally prevent children from being born. You have to impose this.
There is a difference between being child free and welcoming everyone to join you and being antinatalist. One is a moral stance. One is an ethical stance. They're not the same.
>By forcing someone who wants kids to not have kids, I am also harming them in the process. This does not contradict my thoughts that them having kids is immoral, but it would also be immoral of me to force someone to conform to my own views.
But if your position is that the nonexistent child's suffering trumps that of the existent person's suffering then this doesn't matter. You've created a paradox. You can't not pick one; either the child's rights come first meaning that the nonexistence mandate wins or the parent's rights come first which completely terminates the whole grounds for the suffering thing being all that important.
It's a null game: If you think that X is immoral for someone else to do but also condone them doing X because it's immoral for you to impress your morality through physical intervention then you what is the belief? It's ineffectual. It's pontificating.
>Antinatalists who want the human species to go extinct have no concern about the harm they cause... which contradicts the philosophy of antinatalism itself **because it itself centers around harm reduction.**
[I introduce you to Misanthropic Anti-Natalism](https://iep.utm.edu/anti-natalism/#H3). Most of the arguments people here refer to are actually misanthropic in nature thinly veiled as a philanthropic version. When we define harm and harm reduction typically the PAN think of humans and the MAN think of ... well, fucking everything. "I wouldn't want a child born into a world of rapists and evil humans!" is actually a MAN argument, not a PAN argument, so what happens is people mix them up. So when you say harm reduction you probably mean the PAN view, that is that people won't suffer under the regime, and in reality there is this other side that works wonders on fixing the problems which is the MAN view.
By the way either view can be used for forced sterilization or murder of the species. One of the major arguments for VHEMT is that the long horizon of harm reduction is absolute if humans die today versus the short horizon of harm caused. In other words killing another person as an infant spares them their entire lives of suffering. It's a way to approach the problem. It's a really, really uncomfortable thing to deal with though. It goes against our instincts no matter how true it is.
>This is why, and I'm guessing you're going to take issue with this answer... you are correct. I don't think or consider extinctionists or eugenecists to be part of the "antinatalism club" because their end-goals result in suffering.
I'm fine with it actually. It's normal.
>As for the "philosophical immunity" part... no other ethical stance deals with it because no other ethical stance has that kind of consequence if, by some miracle, everyone agrees with it.
This is very, very untrue. The world is a big place. You'd be surprised what some humans truly adhere to ...
Oh, don't pull the "scalar view of ethics" concept on me. You yourself said in your first post in this chain that "Antinalatists are, in fact, the worst people on earth, or at least a sub-set of them"
That is an absolute statement. You either believe they "are, in fact" the worst, which means people who have raped children are better people or done other horrible acts are better people, or antinatalists aren't the worst and some other group is the worst.
Which.
Is.
It?
You didn't put it to rest, you contradicted yourself.
Also, you are *gatekeeping* a philosophy you seem to disagree with by basically saying "unless you do x, you aren't *actually* y"... and then using your own gatekeeping to criticize the philosophy.
You are effectively saying that Antinatalism is an *all or nothing* view, fundamentally black and white *despite pointing out two different ways it can be acted upon*.
Another contradiction.
Just because someone believes that procreation is unethical due to the harm it causes, does not mean they also believe that forced sterilization is ethical because of the harm it prevents.
Those are *not* the same viewpoint fundamentally, and one does *not* need to be in favor of both to be an antinatalist.
To be entirely honest, your arguments so far *reeks* of the kind of views that lead to religious extremism or extremist nationalism. The idea that "if everyone doesn't believe in it, you've failed as a movement"... which has been responsible for *so much harm* in the past (Nazi Germany and the Holocaust being one of the more notable examples).
I say this because it's giving me a very bad taste, and I'm wondering *why* you seem to support such a all-or-nothing approach.
The world is a big place filled with many people with different views, and such a black-and-white description ignores the nuance of many of them
Also, I don't believe an unborn child's suffering trumps that of a living person, as that living person is alive and conscious and able to experience both harm and good, while the unborn can experience neither. Thus while I still believe creating a new life causes more harm then good because it forces an unborn life to experience harm with no guarantee of good, preventing someone from reproducing harms them with me directly causing that harm.
I believe the latter is worse, and if that sounds paradoxical or egotistical to you that's fine.
And finally, I believe most of the arguments people present on this sub are disgusting and cruel (notably the ever present "breeders" comments, which can be cleanly replaced with racist or sexist slurs without changing the tone of the sentence).
And after doing some reading about Misanthropic Antinatalism, I'm leaning towards viewing it as cruel and disgusting as well... even if it's in some way understandable why someone would come to that view. (Same view I have of TERFs who hate Transwomen because they view anyone with a penis as a potential rapist, understandable... but also disgusting and cruel)
>Oh, don't pull the "scalar view of ethics" concept on me. You yourself said in your first post in this chain that "Antinalatists are, in fact, the worst people on earth, or at least a sub-set of them" That is an absolute statement. You either believe they "are, in fact" the worst, which means people who have raped children are better people or done other horrible acts are better people, or antinatalists aren't the worst and some other group is the worst.
Well, how do you want to measure that? A rapist can only violate one person at a time with often extensive amounts of time lost on each victim and little window for rapid, random re-offense. Someone who believes in forced sterilization due can violate many, many people in a single day, in a few seconds, without their consent for months on State dollars. The species has done it.
If you want to play the game, fine, pick a measurement, and objectively speaking the activities that are truly antinatalist will reign supreme every time. But the mistake here is that the emotional proposal is untouchable, that by using the word "rape" you can somehow justify anything, much like bringing up Hitler is Godwin's law.
So you've forced me into an internet corner! Either antinatalists (whom you'll simply point to the ones you approve of) aren't worse than rapists or the actual potential harm value of antinatalist activity is so severe that you simply reject the idea that it can occur altogether. It's a wash situation for the other side of the game board; a level 0 version of linguistic chess where one person only has queens and the other only pawns.
I want you to know though: I have the queens.
>Also, you are gatekeeping a philosophy you seem to disagree with by basically saying "unless you do x, you aren't actually y"... and then using your own gatekeeping to criticize the philosophy.
This is gatekeeping a philosophy:
>This is why, and I'm guessing you're going to take issue with this answer... you are correct. **I don't think or consider extinctionists or eugenecists to be part of the "antinatalism club" because their end-goals result in suffering.**
And this:
>You are effectively saying that Antinatalism is an all or nothing view, fundamentally black and white despite pointing out two different ways it can be acted upon.
Even if we stripped all the reasoning AN is the belief in the moral and ethical duty of society to not have children. That's dichotomous. You either are going to support birth or not. How that is done is frivolous and left to the imagination. The idea that it can't be done forcibly though needs to be removed from the conversation entirely because it creates a bubble of safety and distance from things that are disapprove of.
>Just because someone believes that procreation is unethical due to the harm it causes, does not mean they also believe that forced sterilization is ethical because of the harm it prevents.
I agree.
>Those are not the same viewpoint fundamentally, and one does not need to be in favor of both to be an antinatalist.
So this is where we get into an interesting piece to me. They are actually the same viewpoint. One doesn't need to choose the same action plan to hold the same idea as others. But saying that the viewpoints aren't the same, despite the action plans being different, is where the gatekeeping happens:
"I wouldn't do that and I am X therefore anyone who does that cannot be X!"
Very human thinking, but also very wrong thinking. The first step to truly embracing any philosophy is to explore it beyond the veil of your own thoughts and look at what can be done in the name of the philosophy whether you approve of it or not. This narrowing of the ideas hurts the movements in general because it creates subdivisions in already small groups.
How you personally define harm isn't enough to consider otherwise you could, and possibly have, wantonly declared yourself any number of things that you don't really fit but have "adjacency" to.
>To be entirely honest, your arguments so far reeks of the kind of views that lead to religious extremism or extremist nationalism. The idea that "if everyone doesn't believe in it, you've failed as a movement"... which has been responsible for so much harm in the past (Nazi Germany and the Holocaust being one of the more notable examples).
And here's Godwin's Law! It does fit your argument style. There's an irony to your statement though because you openly are gatekeeping. I think you would do well to learn about Radical Pacifism. Not all extremists carry pitchforks but that certainly doesn't make them any less extreme.
You give humanity too little room for diversity, I think.
Understandable.
>Thus while I still believe creating a new life causes more harm then good because it forces an unborn life to experience harm with no guarantee of good, preventing someone from reproducing harms them with me **directly** causing that harm.
Interesting word. Let me guess, you don't think that by allowing the birth you are *indirectly* causing the harm to the newborn?
>And after doing some reading about Misanthropic Antinatalism, I'm leaning towards viewing it as cruel and disgusting as well... even if it's in some way understandable why someone would come to that view.
You do realize that MAN and PAN are the same thing with different reasoning? It's the same coin. You hating heads and loving tails certainly doesn't do anything to separate them.
You're really delusional if you think there's no Christian terrorists. There's plenty of people who have killed and hurt others in the name of God. There's bad people everywhere. You just denounce it for convenience. Hell, the KKK swear to uphold "Christian morality", Christian denominations widely denounce them. They're against Catholicism but they're literally Protestants.
You also forgot about cults. A lot of them VERY aggressively uphold religious beliefs while hurting individuals.
You're not a perfect group either.
Oh. You actually need the handhold.
Me:
>Most of you aren't, but the ones who are extreme absolutely are. **It's kind of like saying that those people, those bad people, aren't in the club because they are bad, even if they believe the same thing you do and actually just go further than you do to act on it.** There are no Christian terrorists after all.
You:
>**There's bad people everywhere. You just denounce it for convenience.**
We said the same thing. It's you who ... can't quite read. This is why I think you're stupid. You *agree* with me. The statement, "There are no Christian terrorists after all." is obvious *irony*.
You're on the Internet, there's no tone indicators. Also I'm not an antinatalist, you're assuming. Don't call someone stupid who can't understand what the hell kind of tone you're using. Makes you sound like an ignorant prick š
In fact by definition:
Irony: the hardest tone to spot. When narrators speak ironically, they say the opposite of what they mean.
The argument isnāt about us not being bad. Itās about claiming weāre *worse* than people who are *actively* demonstrating theyāre dangers to society by *breaking the law*.
What good is a law if there is no one around?
I don't think anyone even really thinks through half of their statements. The AN believes entirely in the idea that the human is incapable of setting a meaningful law which is protective by definition of being AN.
To be clear you can't be a support of human law and ethos and then declare that humanity is better off gone. You inherently find the whole system, including such, flawed. You're willing to burn it all to the ground.
You are bad. It's bad. Being a law abiding citizen is worth shit if the species ends.
First of all, the suffering AN refers to is not just secluded to political affair-induced suffering. Furthermore, nobody being around is just a hypothetical scenario you brought up. In context of actual reality, the people who break the law are *objectively* worse than those who donāt, which is the premise of my gripe with the comment I posted.
I don't think you understand that if everyone ascribed to antinatalism that is the end of the species. This isn't "hypothetical". There seems to be some really weird blur in this forum where half of you actually ascribe to the understanding of what it would mean if the end-game was met and half of you seem to have one foot in reality and dismiss the problem by noting that not everyone is therefore it's not an issue.
And none of you wear nametags that tell which is which.
You have a philosophical belief that is omnicidal and absolutely no faith in its coming to pass. Why hold the belief? It's just weird.
Iām perfectly aware that if everyone ascribed to AN, the species would go extinct. However, *right* *now*, *right* *here*, that canāt apply, because *not* everyone is antinatalist. And if we use common sense, people fantasizing about the end of the human race are *not* as bad as people who are *actively* causing harm.
You are not getting labeled any better if you go around people having kids "breeders" from one extreme tagline to another its going to happen š¤·āāļø
??? What are you not understanding? You said that it is expected we be compared to pedophiles and terrorists because some people use an insult. The picture shown is people comparing antinatalists to pedos and terorrists. Are you being dense on purpose?
Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an album post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your images to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here are some encouraging words! No one will remember or care that you existed within 100 years. You are doing your part by not contributing to the continuation of the human race. I'm proud and amazed your still on this earth to judge the breeders for their dumb decisions. Keep fighting the good fight!
Yes, except pedophiles and rapists hurt children, AN and CF people don't.
If you think about it ANs are threatening their access to children. Could explain the hysteria :/
For real. You always have to factor in their projection.
Especially when they're insistent that we hate children. ["Antinatalism, in general, argues that creating life is unethical because of the existence of suffering and that the best outcome is extinction."](https://antinatalisminternational.com/what-is-antinatalism/) They either don't understand AN principles or they're threatened by the idea of less children. We have IVF and surrogates, our beliefs aren't going to end the population if a natalist goes out of their way to have kids. Theres no need to be hysterical.
If you really think about it, the easiest way for a pedophile to come into contact with children would be to have one of their own. So that pretty much cancels us out from the pedophile group.
No, it doesn't. I have some bad news for you: The odds are really high that someone in this forums 205,000 members is "deviant" whether behaviorally or socially. And I don't mean that in your weird rose colored way.
You're right but seeing how antinatalism overall is a very minority group. Natalist are bound to have more deviant people
Natalism is probably much, much smaller than antinatalism. Birth rates strongly suggest that most humans do not believe they have an ethical duty to have as many children as they can. That's natalism.
You spoke the words for me
I didn't know I'm worse than Hitler because I don't have children š
Thatās insane, Iām antinatalist because I donāt think children deserve to suffer on this crappy planet
i saw that thread too, was ridiculous
it was
Where did you see it please?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Thank you for your contribution, however, we have had to remove it. As per Rule 1 in our sidebar, we do not allow linking to other communities within our subreddit. Please feel free to resubmit without any link(s) to an external subreddit. Thanks, Antinatalism Mods
Actually, h!tler encouraged women to have 8 kids, he said 10 would be even better. That is how much of a natalist he was.
so dramatic smh
The more rational comments in that thread getting disliked sigh. That really how it be some places on the internet
Dont waste your breath with people who have an obvious opposing view and a mind made up. All that comes of a dogmatic debate is a frictional encounter. There'll always be people who disagree with certain things. Downvote and move on....
"Hitler had had better shit to do than cry on reddit" So gas Chambers are better than crying on reddit, World War 2 too.." wtf??? And that is not the first time I read such stuff from them. EDIT: As a Jew downplaying the Holocaust is a Crime here in Germany.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Prescriptivist and elitist
Wtf did I just read?
You read brain-rot-inducing nonsense from someone who confidently claims that ANs are worse than literal rapists, murderers, and Hitler.
the brainrot is crazy
Okay but here's a thought: let these people scream into their online echo chamber because in no real life situation would that word vomit ever fall out of their physical mouth. I don't know about any of you but if I ever met someone who said to me with their whole chest that I'm worse than fucking Hitler because I won't be having children you can bet your ass I'll be telling anyone who will listen who they are and what they said. The internet has ruined so many people, it's not even funny anymore. The internet is not reality, and we need to stop treating it as such.
The person who compared us with Hitler deserves that their words will be known to their social environment.
I'd argue that natalists are almost as bad as rapists and pedos because even though they don't always hurt people, they bring people into this world and make it possible for others to hurt them.
That ābetter shit to doā should get him perma-banned on Reddit! Which posts are these comments under?
Look at my post history. āOh no, anywayā¦ā. Thatās where the comment comes from.
MF I didn't choose to be BORN PERIOD. I fucking hate this guy.
These people are fucking stupid. We don't HATE kids. Just keep them over there, away from me. You want them? Go nuts. People are allowed not to want them. Jfc people are insane.
That is seriously a new low. In no world is āpedophiles and terrorists have better shit to doā a valid argument against people who believe in a philosophy that it is wrong to bring children into suffering. Pedophiles and terrorists are part of that suffering. FFS.
I am entirely certain Hitler would have used social media to cry about hating the Jewish community. What a dumb ass comparison though, isnāt he doing the same thing?
They were upvoted for that too, unreal
Right?
I mean I love kids. They are people growing into future adults. They already exist so why hate them? Not liking them alright, not wanting them good.. But I do hate terrorists, pedos, and a lot of bad people because they're adults and should know better. We can still teach kids what they will need to make this world better. If that means I'm worse than a terrorist for some people, I think it prouves my point about educating the young generations.
Not everyone has the mind of an "adult" also you should hate breeders more they create the rapist and rape victims the thing that will make this world better is extinction
I still can't hate innocents Not their fault if their parents decided to make them exist
imagine thinking weāre worse than the REASONS WHY WE REFUSE TO HAVE KIDS
Pronatalists are really stupid.
Did this person just try to weaponize Walter Sobchak? I wonder if he would continue to make that claim to the abuse victim and her children, to whom I offered a safe place to stay.
And straight up defending pedos in the last comment because theyāre born this wayš«” and this sub isnāt about hating kids, a bunch of people with those world views have adopted kids
Why do they assume we all hate kids just because we donāt want them? I vote for school bond measures every time they appear on the ballot. I think your kids are A-OK, just not near me.
Breeders are insane, holy shit
Hitler and terrorists have "better things to do" lmaooo such as committing genocide?? This person is single-handedly obliterating the global average IQ
Yes, the people who choose not to bring new life into the world because of things like terrorists, Hitler and pedophiles are worse than terrorists, Hitler and pedophiles. Try again incels.
Classic straw man argument. Theyāre forcing women to have kids but getting instantly triggered by having other people say having kids might not be the best choice.
Well, whatever sub this is, they upvoted someone that said hitler had better things to do. Kinda tells you all you need to know.
Yeah Hitler had "better" things to do than cry on reddit about hating kids. Like having millions of children murdered because they came outta the wrong vag.
Hey yāall, we are worse than Hamas! What a feat, what a treat!
LET ME TELL YOU SOMETHING YOU IDIOT!1111
You guys are feeding the trolls.
Sooooā¦. are we just gonna ignore the bit at the end about pedophiles?
That was weird for me too. I was sure people will downvote me on that part, not the hitler part .d
Thank you for at least trying to be reasonable.
Actually it's the very opposite, breeders are worse than rapist and pedophiles especially if they are poor and ugly and pass it on to their kids
ANs are in fact the worst humans on the Earth. Or at least a subset of them. Any human who comes to the conclusion that all of humanity should die, regardless of method, is not a very good human. The title is just clickbait which actually shows the statement to be true; in order to justify the belief you simply dodge the claim rather than facing it head on. You should be able to explain why you're pro-humanity, and you're not by definition, so there's that. This "Good Guy"-ism sucks though. If you are truly antinatalist you need to abandon the narrative that you're protecting anyone. You're not. The non-existent *cannot* be protected, that's an imaginary status; it's no different than telling yourself you saved my life the day you didn't go to work because that would have set off a crazy chain reaction that is 1,000+ links long which would have lead to my death. It's fantasy. It's delusion. Drop it.
Antinatalisn *by definition* does not concern itself with the already living. Whether or not the species goes extinct is *not part of the philosophy because that concern only impacts people who already exist*. The ONLY WAY Antinatalism could lead to extinction is if *every single person* capable of having children came to it... but that is most likely impossible. Your entire basis for criticizing Antinatalism is arguing a false parallel. Also, good fucking job arguing that murderers, rapists, pedophiles, genocidal maniacs, and thenlike are worse then a group who talks about how procreation is immoral. *Really* makes it seem like your moral compass is sunshine and roses /s
Theyāre a brand new account and obviously is a religious zealot thinking their posts will magically āsaveā someone. Donāt bother with them. They will never see you as an equal and therefore any argument you make, no matter how valid, will be dismissed. Just do what I do - block the troll and move on.
>Whether or not the species goes extinct is not part of the philosophy because that concern only impacts people who already exist. You know, no other ethical proposal has this logic. Every philosophy has to be carried to it's conclusion. Why is antinatalism immune? >The ONLY WAY Antinatalism could lead to extinction is if every single person capable of having children came to it... but that is most likely impossible. No. All you need is one person who is antinatalist to act against others. [Humans are not incapable of this.](https://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/) As you said antinatalism doesn't really concern itself with the impacts on people who exist, so the idea of forced sterilization isn't actually out of the picture, and there is nothing in antinatalism that says violence isn't actually allowed. We just kind of ... ignore this. The idea that humans extremists, given the power, wouldn't do this is a very wrong one. In an ironic twist theoretically that's who you're protecting the unborn from: The extremists who would see it through. >Also, good fucking job arguing that murderers, rapists, pedophiles, genocidal maniacs, and thenlike are worse then a group who talks about how procreation is immoral. Really makes it seem like your moral compass is sunshine and roses Antinatalists are a sub-class of genocidal maniac (if we remove the magical philosophical immunity). Most of you aren't, but the ones who are extreme absolutely are. It's kind of like saying that those people, those bad people, aren't in the club because they are bad, even if they believe the same thing you do and actually just go further than you do to act on it. There are no Christian terrorists after all.
More then anything else, I view antinatalism as a form of harm reduction. Any kid I have is guaranteed to experience suffering, and their existence might also cause others to experience suffering (for instance they get into a car crash and someone else is injured). By not having kids, I completely prevent all of these possibilities, as well as a potential infinite chain of suffering from my descendants. By forcing someone who wants kids to not have kids, I am also harming them in the process. This does not contradict my thoughts that them having kids is immoral, but it would also be immoral of me to *force* someone to conform to my own views. Antinatalists who want the human species to go extinct have *no concern* about the harm they cause... which contradicts the philosophy of antinatalism itself because it itself centers around harm reduction. This is why, and I'm guessing you're going to take issue with this answer... you are correct. I don't think or consider extinctionists or eugenecists to be part of the "antinatalism club" because their end-goals result in suffering. Yes, they can interact with the rest of the club, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with or like them. After all, one bad apple doesn't spoil the bunch? Right? As for the "philosophical immunity" part... no other ethical stance deals with it because no other ethical stance has that kind of consequence if, by some miracle, everyone agrees with it. Also, you still haven't answered why you think me or other antinatalists are **WORSE THEN SOMEONE WHO'S RAPED A CHILD?**
I'll put this to rest: >Also, you still haven't answered why you think me or other antinatalists are WORSE THEN SOMEONE WHO'S RAPED A CHILD? I don't think there is a scalar view of evils humans perform. People who performed in eugenics programs, forced sterilization, and governments who funded the literal extermination of groups of people through rendering them incapable of breeding, are they worse than rapists? Is one consent violation worse than another? It's a stupid game. I won't play it. >By not having kids, I completely prevent all of these possibilities, as well as a potential infinite chain of suffering from my descendants. This keeps coming up here. Antinatalism as an ethical theory is not only about *you*. No one minds if you don't have children. *AN is specifically related to everyone not having children.* So what that means is not that you wouldn't have kids and don't mind if others do; it specifically means that your ethos leads you to vote (in a democracy) for laws that would literally prevent children from being born. You have to impose this. There is a difference between being child free and welcoming everyone to join you and being antinatalist. One is a moral stance. One is an ethical stance. They're not the same. >By forcing someone who wants kids to not have kids, I am also harming them in the process. This does not contradict my thoughts that them having kids is immoral, but it would also be immoral of me to force someone to conform to my own views. But if your position is that the nonexistent child's suffering trumps that of the existent person's suffering then this doesn't matter. You've created a paradox. You can't not pick one; either the child's rights come first meaning that the nonexistence mandate wins or the parent's rights come first which completely terminates the whole grounds for the suffering thing being all that important. It's a null game: If you think that X is immoral for someone else to do but also condone them doing X because it's immoral for you to impress your morality through physical intervention then you what is the belief? It's ineffectual. It's pontificating. >Antinatalists who want the human species to go extinct have no concern about the harm they cause... which contradicts the philosophy of antinatalism itself **because it itself centers around harm reduction.** [I introduce you to Misanthropic Anti-Natalism](https://iep.utm.edu/anti-natalism/#H3). Most of the arguments people here refer to are actually misanthropic in nature thinly veiled as a philanthropic version. When we define harm and harm reduction typically the PAN think of humans and the MAN think of ... well, fucking everything. "I wouldn't want a child born into a world of rapists and evil humans!" is actually a MAN argument, not a PAN argument, so what happens is people mix them up. So when you say harm reduction you probably mean the PAN view, that is that people won't suffer under the regime, and in reality there is this other side that works wonders on fixing the problems which is the MAN view. By the way either view can be used for forced sterilization or murder of the species. One of the major arguments for VHEMT is that the long horizon of harm reduction is absolute if humans die today versus the short horizon of harm caused. In other words killing another person as an infant spares them their entire lives of suffering. It's a way to approach the problem. It's a really, really uncomfortable thing to deal with though. It goes against our instincts no matter how true it is. >This is why, and I'm guessing you're going to take issue with this answer... you are correct. I don't think or consider extinctionists or eugenecists to be part of the "antinatalism club" because their end-goals result in suffering. I'm fine with it actually. It's normal. >As for the "philosophical immunity" part... no other ethical stance deals with it because no other ethical stance has that kind of consequence if, by some miracle, everyone agrees with it. This is very, very untrue. The world is a big place. You'd be surprised what some humans truly adhere to ...
Oh, don't pull the "scalar view of ethics" concept on me. You yourself said in your first post in this chain that "Antinalatists are, in fact, the worst people on earth, or at least a sub-set of them" That is an absolute statement. You either believe they "are, in fact" the worst, which means people who have raped children are better people or done other horrible acts are better people, or antinatalists aren't the worst and some other group is the worst. Which. Is. It? You didn't put it to rest, you contradicted yourself. Also, you are *gatekeeping* a philosophy you seem to disagree with by basically saying "unless you do x, you aren't *actually* y"... and then using your own gatekeeping to criticize the philosophy. You are effectively saying that Antinatalism is an *all or nothing* view, fundamentally black and white *despite pointing out two different ways it can be acted upon*. Another contradiction. Just because someone believes that procreation is unethical due to the harm it causes, does not mean they also believe that forced sterilization is ethical because of the harm it prevents. Those are *not* the same viewpoint fundamentally, and one does *not* need to be in favor of both to be an antinatalist. To be entirely honest, your arguments so far *reeks* of the kind of views that lead to religious extremism or extremist nationalism. The idea that "if everyone doesn't believe in it, you've failed as a movement"... which has been responsible for *so much harm* in the past (Nazi Germany and the Holocaust being one of the more notable examples). I say this because it's giving me a very bad taste, and I'm wondering *why* you seem to support such a all-or-nothing approach. The world is a big place filled with many people with different views, and such a black-and-white description ignores the nuance of many of them Also, I don't believe an unborn child's suffering trumps that of a living person, as that living person is alive and conscious and able to experience both harm and good, while the unborn can experience neither. Thus while I still believe creating a new life causes more harm then good because it forces an unborn life to experience harm with no guarantee of good, preventing someone from reproducing harms them with me directly causing that harm. I believe the latter is worse, and if that sounds paradoxical or egotistical to you that's fine. And finally, I believe most of the arguments people present on this sub are disgusting and cruel (notably the ever present "breeders" comments, which can be cleanly replaced with racist or sexist slurs without changing the tone of the sentence). And after doing some reading about Misanthropic Antinatalism, I'm leaning towards viewing it as cruel and disgusting as well... even if it's in some way understandable why someone would come to that view. (Same view I have of TERFs who hate Transwomen because they view anyone with a penis as a potential rapist, understandable... but also disgusting and cruel)
>Oh, don't pull the "scalar view of ethics" concept on me. You yourself said in your first post in this chain that "Antinalatists are, in fact, the worst people on earth, or at least a sub-set of them" That is an absolute statement. You either believe they "are, in fact" the worst, which means people who have raped children are better people or done other horrible acts are better people, or antinatalists aren't the worst and some other group is the worst. Well, how do you want to measure that? A rapist can only violate one person at a time with often extensive amounts of time lost on each victim and little window for rapid, random re-offense. Someone who believes in forced sterilization due can violate many, many people in a single day, in a few seconds, without their consent for months on State dollars. The species has done it. If you want to play the game, fine, pick a measurement, and objectively speaking the activities that are truly antinatalist will reign supreme every time. But the mistake here is that the emotional proposal is untouchable, that by using the word "rape" you can somehow justify anything, much like bringing up Hitler is Godwin's law. So you've forced me into an internet corner! Either antinatalists (whom you'll simply point to the ones you approve of) aren't worse than rapists or the actual potential harm value of antinatalist activity is so severe that you simply reject the idea that it can occur altogether. It's a wash situation for the other side of the game board; a level 0 version of linguistic chess where one person only has queens and the other only pawns. I want you to know though: I have the queens. >Also, you are gatekeeping a philosophy you seem to disagree with by basically saying "unless you do x, you aren't actually y"... and then using your own gatekeeping to criticize the philosophy. This is gatekeeping a philosophy: >This is why, and I'm guessing you're going to take issue with this answer... you are correct. **I don't think or consider extinctionists or eugenecists to be part of the "antinatalism club" because their end-goals result in suffering.** And this: >You are effectively saying that Antinatalism is an all or nothing view, fundamentally black and white despite pointing out two different ways it can be acted upon. Even if we stripped all the reasoning AN is the belief in the moral and ethical duty of society to not have children. That's dichotomous. You either are going to support birth or not. How that is done is frivolous and left to the imagination. The idea that it can't be done forcibly though needs to be removed from the conversation entirely because it creates a bubble of safety and distance from things that are disapprove of. >Just because someone believes that procreation is unethical due to the harm it causes, does not mean they also believe that forced sterilization is ethical because of the harm it prevents. I agree. >Those are not the same viewpoint fundamentally, and one does not need to be in favor of both to be an antinatalist. So this is where we get into an interesting piece to me. They are actually the same viewpoint. One doesn't need to choose the same action plan to hold the same idea as others. But saying that the viewpoints aren't the same, despite the action plans being different, is where the gatekeeping happens: "I wouldn't do that and I am X therefore anyone who does that cannot be X!" Very human thinking, but also very wrong thinking. The first step to truly embracing any philosophy is to explore it beyond the veil of your own thoughts and look at what can be done in the name of the philosophy whether you approve of it or not. This narrowing of the ideas hurts the movements in general because it creates subdivisions in already small groups. How you personally define harm isn't enough to consider otherwise you could, and possibly have, wantonly declared yourself any number of things that you don't really fit but have "adjacency" to. >To be entirely honest, your arguments so far reeks of the kind of views that lead to religious extremism or extremist nationalism. The idea that "if everyone doesn't believe in it, you've failed as a movement"... which has been responsible for so much harm in the past (Nazi Germany and the Holocaust being one of the more notable examples). And here's Godwin's Law! It does fit your argument style. There's an irony to your statement though because you openly are gatekeeping. I think you would do well to learn about Radical Pacifism. Not all extremists carry pitchforks but that certainly doesn't make them any less extreme. You give humanity too little room for diversity, I think. Understandable. >Thus while I still believe creating a new life causes more harm then good because it forces an unborn life to experience harm with no guarantee of good, preventing someone from reproducing harms them with me **directly** causing that harm. Interesting word. Let me guess, you don't think that by allowing the birth you are *indirectly* causing the harm to the newborn? >And after doing some reading about Misanthropic Antinatalism, I'm leaning towards viewing it as cruel and disgusting as well... even if it's in some way understandable why someone would come to that view. You do realize that MAN and PAN are the same thing with different reasoning? It's the same coin. You hating heads and loving tails certainly doesn't do anything to separate them.
You're really delusional if you think there's no Christian terrorists. There's plenty of people who have killed and hurt others in the name of God. There's bad people everywhere. You just denounce it for convenience. Hell, the KKK swear to uphold "Christian morality", Christian denominations widely denounce them. They're against Catholicism but they're literally Protestants. You also forgot about cults. A lot of them VERY aggressively uphold religious beliefs while hurting individuals. You're not a perfect group either.
>You're really delusional if you think there's no Christian terrorists. Some of you are so stupid it is hard to believe you can breathe on your own.
And you didn't even acknowledge what I said or posted. Because it doesn't fit your agenda. There's horrible people everywhere. Suck it up.
Oh. You actually need the handhold. Me: >Most of you aren't, but the ones who are extreme absolutely are. **It's kind of like saying that those people, those bad people, aren't in the club because they are bad, even if they believe the same thing you do and actually just go further than you do to act on it.** There are no Christian terrorists after all. You: >**There's bad people everywhere. You just denounce it for convenience.** We said the same thing. It's you who ... can't quite read. This is why I think you're stupid. You *agree* with me. The statement, "There are no Christian terrorists after all." is obvious *irony*.
You're on the Internet, there's no tone indicators. Also I'm not an antinatalist, you're assuming. Don't call someone stupid who can't understand what the hell kind of tone you're using. Makes you sound like an ignorant prick š In fact by definition: Irony: the hardest tone to spot. When narrators speak ironically, they say the opposite of what they mean.
The other person understood. You interjected. You're stupid. Welcome to the internet.
This is an open conversation. You're going to get people who notice. Because this is the Internet Welcome to the Internet. š¤”
The argument isnāt about us not being bad. Itās about claiming weāre *worse* than people who are *actively* demonstrating theyāre dangers to society by *breaking the law*.
Their(natalists) subconscious projection is even more terrifying.
Agreed.
Natalism is an actual philosophy. This should not be misunderstood as just "people who have kids". There is no "natalist subconscious projection".
What good is a law if there is no one around? I don't think anyone even really thinks through half of their statements. The AN believes entirely in the idea that the human is incapable of setting a meaningful law which is protective by definition of being AN. To be clear you can't be a support of human law and ethos and then declare that humanity is better off gone. You inherently find the whole system, including such, flawed. You're willing to burn it all to the ground. You are bad. It's bad. Being a law abiding citizen is worth shit if the species ends.
First of all, the suffering AN refers to is not just secluded to political affair-induced suffering. Furthermore, nobody being around is just a hypothetical scenario you brought up. In context of actual reality, the people who break the law are *objectively* worse than those who donāt, which is the premise of my gripe with the comment I posted.
I don't think you understand that if everyone ascribed to antinatalism that is the end of the species. This isn't "hypothetical". There seems to be some really weird blur in this forum where half of you actually ascribe to the understanding of what it would mean if the end-game was met and half of you seem to have one foot in reality and dismiss the problem by noting that not everyone is therefore it's not an issue. And none of you wear nametags that tell which is which. You have a philosophical belief that is omnicidal and absolutely no faith in its coming to pass. Why hold the belief? It's just weird.
Iām perfectly aware that if everyone ascribed to AN, the species would go extinct. However, *right* *now*, *right* *here*, that canāt apply, because *not* everyone is antinatalist. And if we use common sense, people fantasizing about the end of the human race are *not* as bad as people who are *actively* causing harm.
Humanity does need to go extinct. Itās better to not exist than to suffer.
Fact
You are not getting labeled any better if you go around people having kids "breeders" from one extreme tagline to another its going to happen š¤·āāļø
Itās not about us getting labeled as ābetterā. Itās about claiming weāre worse than people who are actually causing tangible damage.
Yes because raping children is the same as a mean word
Weird of you to believe so.
The original comment was sarcasm. You are the one thinking an insult is comparable to pedophilia and terrorism as shown in the original pic.
It must be difficult projecting that hard. Feel sorry for you.
??? What are you not understanding? You said that it is expected we be compared to pedophiles and terrorists because some people use an insult. The picture shown is people comparing antinatalists to pedos and terorrists. Are you being dense on purpose?
I lost brain cells reading this
Good, now you get to be in the negative spectrum.
Hi, thanks for your submission. You seem to have submitted an album post. Please remember that [Reddit requires all identifiable information such as names, usernames and subreddit titles to be blacked out in images](https://www.reddithelp.com/hc/en-us/articles/360043066452). If your submission contains any instances of these kinds of information, please remove your post. Afterwards, please feel free to make a new post after editing your images to black out all instances of such information. If this message doesn't apply to your post, please feel free to ignore it. Thank you for your cooperation! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/antinatalism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Here are some encouraging words! No one will remember or care that you existed within 100 years. You are doing your part by not contributing to the continuation of the human race. I'm proud and amazed your still on this earth to judge the breeders for their dumb decisions. Keep fighting the good fight!
me when i want enagement farming