ANs tried to make me feel badly and look stupid for talking with my subbers about their pet subject. It would do more for their cause if they encouraged people to discuss the idea, without requiring a wholistic rebuttal attempt which they then cry about.
If you're going to title something "Why Efilism Fails" you really should know something about it and you should have more in your arsenal than "convince a cell life is bad" and ramble about how cells have a conception of life. Cells aren't sentient, they don't perceive or have subjective experiences.
Also the circular logic of life is good because it's good will piss people off.
The Lion King made a more compelling argument than you did.
@MrWarrenLO The logic is actually that Life is good because the concept of "good" is created by Life through its desire and ability to define itself. The definition that Life gave itself is "good". If that is "circular" then what's wrong with circles?
Efilists do seem to be claiming that they will end all sentient life, yet they fail to recognize that cell bodies are sentient, and those basic lives are the ones that they will either have to "mercy kill" or convince.
Impossibility to do something everywhere in the cosmos =/= pointless to do on Earth or anywhere else within our sphere of physical access (present or future). By that standard, it's makes no sense to eradicate war, hunger, disease, poverty, corruption, etc. just because we can't do it elsewhere in the cosmos - or do anything else at all for that matter. Yet it'd be frankly batshit insane to argue against activism, etc. on the basis we can't do it elsewhere outside our travel radius.
I thank you and acknowledge that, gambiota. EFILISM is an out-and-out BASTARDIZED FORM of AN; just like Soviet Communism was a bastardized form of Socialism. Or al-Qaedaism a bastardized form of Islam. Back to AN, I'm in what's called the Philanthropic camp, based in Suffering Prevention and Alleviation. Genocide and forced sterilty CLEARLY go against this. We also believe in Freedom of Choice (necessarily part of SP). Phil AN's simply seek to inform and educate.
If anyone's all for antinatalism, quit talking about it and jump off a bridge.End the misery that was never meant to be, put a bullet in your head, far away from me.
And what about the anguish our surviving family and friends would have? That would create more of the very suffering AN's seek to prevent! In effect, you're asking us to be the very hypocrites you clam we are by not offing ourselves. Also, our survival instinct erects HUGE barriers to suicide, which is why it's a rather uncommon way to die (only 1/120 of all deaths in fact). Just because it's easy to imagine a solution does not mean the solution is easy to carry out.
@filrabat So, you're somehow aware of possess the knowledge that all my siblings , cousins, aunts, etc. are in anguish and in pain, simply because they exist? It's not your fault, dude . . . . It's not your fault.
Frankly, you little turd, you poison every well you drink out of as well. In fact, of the pair of you, I would rather be associated with Diana, at least she isn't a completely piss weak bucket of self regarding pity like you.
This highlights a big problem with animal comparisons: The ignore the unique details that separate humans from other animals. Yes we are animals, but we have unique mental traits that separate us from other animals - capacity for forethought, more ability to imagine alternatives and to communicate far more precise information than screeches, growls, and barks allow for. All this gives us MUCH more power/ability to overrule our animal instincts- not complete power, but MORE of it
I'm not talking about realism on the species level. Knight (VHEMT spokesperson) himself admits the chances of ALL of us voluntary ceasing procreation are "between slim and none". Phil. ANs definitely agree (though many, including me, aren't VHEMTers). All I'm saying is that if we convince even only a tiny fraction to forego children based on our arguments, it still does some good. As for realism - depends on whether it's the individual or species level, This is the crux, I guess.
It is mental masturbation though. Even if you are given all of your points, which is a very big ask because the whole thing is constructed to diminish the worth of the positive, front loading it completely.
The possibility of stopping life doing the only thing it is actually designed to do, reproduce, is zero. Hollywood sci-fi bullshit.
That makes it just a game that you have decided to participate in.
The question of whether or not it is ethical to have children is INDEPENDENT of the point of whether we can get everyone to act ethically. We are just explaining why it is unethical (causes unnecessary harms)...and like anything else, for example purposely drunk driving - we can call people on the unethic. Would you say it is mental masturbation to tell people not to drive drunk? Or not to harm others for their own satisfaction?
There is no analogy between those two propositions. It is a testament to your silly group think on this subject that you can so glibly liken the very mechanism that allowed the concept of ethics to come into being and a derangement of the senses.
It is a bullshit rhetorical device worthy a two bit fanatic, nothing more.
If you cannot see the difference between those two propositions, the why would I continue this conversation?
Because you did talk about things you do not understand, and in a way that you are an authority on those things.You did not block me on my first comment on your channel. Rather, you started a conversation with me, and only after I explained something to you that you (obviously) have no education on, only then you blocked me. I was not insulting to you on your channel, but you were plenty to me.
You can use the words "mental masturbation" all you like. It is called logic and reason. Something that you don't seem to understand. Again, you make a claim without backing it up, and when you do try to back it up you do so with either poor reasoning such as suggesting that value does not exist, consciousness does not exits, pain does not exist, and so fourth. You do this with nothing backing up such claims and tons of evidence that they do exist.
And then as soon as someone tries to reason with you you plug your ears and say "mental masturbation". Sorry, if you don't want to be viewed as an "idiot who talks aobut things he doesn't understand" then either stop talking about things you don't understand, or actually educate yourself on the things you want to discuss. And stop acting like you are an authority when you aren't even close.
Intellectual honesty is not really too much to ask.
@trick0171 Trick you have come to show what an ass hole you really are. You hate life and disgusting peice of shit who wants the world to end with you in a extremist collectivist manner we should all accept your values as the value.
You weak and you cannot accept the absurd indiffrence of nature that is what I notice with most you anti-anatalists you are as Bob Chaos once said to Gary often atheists who wished you where religous.
Face it morality is subjective, Values are as well.
@trick0171 P 2 Someone who values life as a gift will just see giving life as giving a gift ! All based on values.
Your philosophy could be compared to cutting once foot of just because it has a scar.
It is useless and amounts to nothingness.
Your weakness to accept the cold indifrence of mother nature is another great problem and you inablity to see value in joy and happiness. All values go from assumtpion that suffering is th absolute and that suffering is only bad this is wrong.
@trick0171 You understand logic ? Like all objectivist you just commit one logical fallcy after the next.
Your ideas are nothings apealing to assumption about unborn individual and living with falalcy of the none-existing objective morality that does not exist have never existed and will never exist morality is subjective and exist in your head no place else.
Logic what logic is there to apeal to none-existense ? To see suffering as the deafut and consider pain signals to be bad ?
Three comments and not one word against the actual argument presented. Statements and insults are not arguments, and neither are the obvious misunderstanding and blunders you hold.
* Again, there is not an appeal to non-existence...how many times does this need to be addressed? The appeal (for the value) is to EXISTENCE...and the creation or prevention of such.
It is asinine philosophy. I have spent the last couple of days looking at it and is a complete distraction from the actual problems that face us as a species. I might as well get angry with David Icke saying that the elites are all lizards. There are plenty of reprehensible ideas might actually impact people, this is not one of them.
The only advice I could give people about it is to smile politely then wave and drive on.
@gabiotta "Efil = life backwards. Very clever, sure to catch on with the kids. :)"
Ha-ha, and lol! Ever since I was a child and loved doing this I have seen many children do it - pronouncing or writing their names or any other word backward. Your irony (in this situation) didn't go unnoticed. :)
Thank you for this one, Gabiotta. While all this foofaraw continues, the planet's atmospheric and surface temperatures continue to rise, as do the oceans, as do the greenhouse gases. It would be rather difficult to 'change the world' when the surface temp. exceeds 65 degrees celsius and sulfur dioxide levels are rising to the point of extinguishing all life. I view most of this debate on the 'whichness of the why' as essentially worthless.
Biology creates experiences that ARE positive or negative to the creature that has to endure them. And of course survival of the fittest was the mechanism that has created these POSITIVE and NEGATIVE experiences. The fact that you think consciousness and experience (such as pain and suffering) does not exist is unscientific gibberish.
"YOUR experience that is the difference the rest of us have had different experience. "
My experience is based on my objective neurostructure at any one time. Noone ever said all experience is the same, just that we biologically have similar structures which include the capacity to experience pain and suffering.
Maybe you are a cyborg and do not have the capacity to experience these things. Maybe that is why you cannot understand the what such experience entails and that it exists.
"and it sure as hell doesn't give you the right to end all life..."
I am addressing not bringing new humans into existence, which is entirely different than ending existing human life. Of course you have no fair counter argument against what I am saying, so all you can do is whine that I am looking to end existing life even though that is not the argument being made.
Please stop. You already blocked me and removed my comments which were presented in a fair, calm, and thoughtful manner on your channel....for no reason other than you did not have the capacity to dispute them fairly.
You obviously are not about a fair argument. You are quite nasty and will cheat the argument in any way that you can. Either actually address the points made or please get lost.
Riiiiiight, negative experiences are not important. We are wasting our time with anesthetic when someone comes into emergency. There is no significance to negative experience at all. The only reason to give a person anesthetic is because their screams are annoying, it has nothing to do with the negative experience they are having.
The fact that diana boston supports antinatalism is reason enough for me to think its a good thing...the last thing we want is that hairy old wonky toothed bint reporducing
And chemicals are made of molecules, and molecules are made of atoms, etc. Consciousness is a whole ...derived of parts in action, just as "chemicals" are a whole derived of parts in action.
Downward causation is of key scientific importance, ie. whole having an effect on parts which in turn have an effect on the whole. Most cognitive scientists are not reductionists. Maybe you are?
Anyway, this all stemmed from negative utilitarian-type thinking. It's well-known that NU in its unqualified form mandates the destruction of all life (it's absurd - and is normally thrown out upon being pushed to its logical conclusion).
Qualified versions of NU can be very strong, though.
Consciousness is a phenomena that occurs via a playthrough of specific configurations of matter and energy. No scientist is going to agree with you that animals are not conscious and do not experience. You are out of your gord.
All meaning and value is within consciousness. There is no purpose or meaning other than what consciousness experiences. Therefore it is quite relevant.
It is unnecessary to non-conscious matter and energy that holds no such desire to obtain pleasure, no value of such. I, on the other hand, am conscious.
@trick0171 I really don't think Benatar's asymmetry works. As far as I can see it's just a word trick. Deprivation is an emotional state (normally negative) i.e. a subset of suffering. The lack of deprived feelings is included in the lack of suffering. No suffering = no deprivation. If you say there is no experience of pleasure then it's clear.
i) Positive mental states are good.
ii) No experience of positive or negative mental states (neutral).
Good > Neutral FOR an existing mental state ....NOT for a non-existing mental state
Negative < Neutral FOR an existing mental state...NOT for a non-existing mental state
Again it is the difference between creating positive value at the expense of negative value that is not needed (neither state is) by non-mental states. The value only happens FOR a mental state. This is key to the asymmetry.
You seem to misunderstand what the asymmetry is as well. Prevention of harm is the prevention of the value OF harm (a state where harm exists). The creation of pleasure from a non-value state is unnecessary as there is no deprivation by not creating such pleasure. Again, it is the difference between prevention and UNNECESSARY creation.
It is a smart choice of you not to make videos against arguments you do not fully understand (such as asymmetry, which has to do with prevention of harm vs. unnecessary creation of pleasure - rather than "pain outweighing pleasure")
1. Comprehensive sex education from Yr6 - Y12, with an emphasis on safe sex
2. All contraceptives tax free, and emergency contraception available 24hrs.
3. Remove all government support for IVF and reproductive services (including those accessed by the lezzies... if people need help having their own kids, they need to pay for it)
4. End the "baby bonus" in Australia ($4000 at birth) and other cash incentives to have kids across the Western world.
5. Change the culture around birth and childrearing. For starters, those with kids have to be honest about it, ALL of it. Not just the giggles and the baby talk, but also the ripped vaginas, constant crying, sometimes years of sleeplessness, emergency ward stories, poo, vomit, piss, painting with poo... ALL of it. Then people can make a more informed decision about whether they want to bring kids into the world, rather than just believe the bullshit our culture pumps out about "the family".
I agree with all of that except number three. I dislike the idea of a two tear health system or of having children being a luxury only some people can afford.
@g Hmmm... IVF puts a woman's body under incredible strain (particularly if she needs multiple cycles) and may lead to an elevated risk of cancer, while the rate of congenital birth defects in IVF kids is nearly twice those of kids conceived naturally. If we fixed international adoption laws, people would probably be less inclined to opt for these (expensive for the tax payer) reproductive services.
@g From an economic standpoint, it'd be interesting to see what would happen to the reproductive health sector if the government reduced or removed subsidies. Are the costs of these services artificially inflated to absorb this money? Is artificial insemination affordable for most people who want to access it.
True story: My mum did charity work through her church in a low SES suburb. One family had 8 neglected children (2 in foster care) and were still able to access AI services.
... for free. So they had twins, even though he was bedridden, and she couldn't parent the kids she already had. Does that make sense to you?
We have to think of reproduction as less of a right and more of a responsibility. It would be in our best interests to tinker with the definition of "reproductive rights", to consider the rights of any potential children over and above the right of someone with no hope of being a good parent. Most of society's ills can be put down to bad parenting.
As I said in the video, those ideas are fairly harmless well meaning. My particular ire is aimed at the extremists and I have heard the words coming directly from them. Believing lies? Bullshit. You are either ignoring the worst excesses or you are not up to speed with what is going on... making you an....idiot..
@macandease cept it categorically doesn't cos he's a narcissistic self involved parent-to-be, where as AN is fundamentally about choosing not to procreate due to recognition of the potential harm/suffering one is responsible for subjecting a consciousness to by creating it... deep breath.... not to mention the fact that consciousness did not request to be entered into the lottery of life in the first place.
@SkidRowRadio Well he said in his old video i remember (He deleted it by now). That people shouldn't have children instead that they should adopt, He even said that he didn't want any children. But we all know how our special Gerggles is!
As disturbing as it was, the gradual degradation into insane policy was oddly interesting.
It started from seemingly benevolent grounds and somehow grew into a monster. It was quite an interesting psychological "experiment"... to see how human psychology can degrade like that.
There is often a game of one-up-man-ship that happens inside groups like this. A competition that stems from wanting to appear the most devout leads to a vortex of extremism.
I'm pretty much of the same mind. I'm not exactly quaking in my boots in fear of some anti-natalist army marching across the face of the Earth anytime soon. I'm a 'que sera sera-ist'. The chips are going to fall where they may and anyone thinking that they can 'solve' the 'ultimate problem' are just engaging in presumptuous arrogance and mental masturbation. No harm, no foul
@HeavyTrafficAhead Unfortunately, there is harm being done; in the form of mental harm towards the people who subscribe to it and live for it even though it's not going anywhere. I can't think of a less fulfilling life than being an antinatalist hardcore activist, and at the same time, since it's so painful to arouse antagonism like this it feeds the person's psychology to feel that he is right about life more and more. In that sense it's an obvious vicious circle.
@HeavyTrafficAhead Imagine the crisis Gary will face in something like 10 years or so from now. It will hit him hard how much time he has wasted into this.
Why? It is asinine philosophy. I have spent the last couple of days looking at it and is a complete distraction from the actual problems that face us as a species. I might as well get angry with David Icke saying that the elites are all lizards. There are plenty of reprehensible ideas might actually impact people, this is not one of them.
The only advice I could give people about it is to smile politely then wave and drive on.
ANs tried to make me feel badly and look stupid for talking with my subbers about their pet subject. It would do more for their cause if they encouraged people to discuss the idea, without requiring a wholistic rebuttal attempt which they then cry about.
paxguerilla 3 months ago
@paxguerilla
I checked out your vid/comments.
If you're going to title something "Why Efilism Fails" you really should know something about it and you should have more in your arsenal than "convince a cell life is bad" and ramble about how cells have a conception of life. Cells aren't sentient, they don't perceive or have subjective experiences.
Also the circular logic of life is good because it's good will piss people off.
The Lion King made a more compelling argument than you did.
MrWarrenLO 3 months ago
@MrWarrenLO Oh thanks. Next check out my video "are all efilists mean?" Then go watch my other videos about cellular consciousness.
paxguerilla 3 months ago
@MrWarrenLO The logic is actually that Life is good because the concept of "good" is created by Life through its desire and ability to define itself. The definition that Life gave itself is "good". If that is "circular" then what's wrong with circles?
Efilists do seem to be claiming that they will end all sentient life, yet they fail to recognize that cell bodies are sentient, and those basic lives are the ones that they will either have to "mercy kill" or convince.
paxguerilla 3 months ago
Impossibility to do something everywhere in the cosmos =/= pointless to do on Earth or anywhere else within our sphere of physical access (present or future). By that standard, it's makes no sense to eradicate war, hunger, disease, poverty, corruption, etc. just because we can't do it elsewhere in the cosmos - or do anything else at all for that matter. Yet it'd be frankly batshit insane to argue against activism, etc. on the basis we can't do it elsewhere outside our travel radius.
filrabat 3 months ago
@filrabat
It was talking to you, btw, that made me draw the clear line between the two camps on the other side of this conversation.
gabiotta 3 months ago
@gabiotta
@gabiotta
I thank you and acknowledge that, gambiota. EFILISM is an out-and-out BASTARDIZED FORM of AN; just like Soviet Communism was a bastardized form of Socialism. Or al-Qaedaism a bastardized form of Islam. Back to AN, I'm in what's called the Philanthropic camp, based in Suffering Prevention and Alleviation. Genocide and forced sterilty CLEARLY go against this. We also believe in Freedom of Choice (necessarily part of SP). Phil AN's simply seek to inform and educate.
filrabat 3 months ago
If anyone's all for antinatalism, quit talking about it and jump off a bridge.End the misery that was never meant to be, put a bullet in your head, far away from me.
KillingKeymo 3 months ago
@KillingKeymo
And what about the anguish our surviving family and friends would have? That would create more of the very suffering AN's seek to prevent! In effect, you're asking us to be the very hypocrites you clam we are by not offing ourselves. Also, our survival instinct erects HUGE barriers to suicide, which is why it's a rather uncommon way to die (only 1/120 of all deaths in fact). Just because it's easy to imagine a solution does not mean the solution is easy to carry out.
filrabat 3 months ago
@filrabat The anguish of our surviving families . . . What the actual fuck are you talking about?!
KillingKeymo 3 months ago
@KillingKeymo Siblings, parents, cousins, aunts, uncles. Can't get any clearer than that.
filrabat 3 months ago
@filrabat So, you're somehow aware of possess the knowledge that all my siblings , cousins, aunts, etc. are in anguish and in pain, simply because they exist? It's not your fault, dude . . . . It's not your fault.
KillingKeymo 3 months ago
@HeroinChurch
Frankly, you little turd, you poison every well you drink out of as well. In fact, of the pair of you, I would rather be associated with Diana, at least she isn't a completely piss weak bucket of self regarding pity like you.
Stay the fuck off my channel.
gabiotta 3 months ago
We are monkey's and monkey's will fuck and have babies is an objective truth?
*slow clap*
MrWarrenLO 3 months ago
@MrWarrenLO
Sarcasm? You do know that is a leading cause of brain cancer?
gabiotta 3 months ago
@gabiotta
Really? Shit!
Someone tell Gratex before it's too late!
MrWarrenLO 3 months ago
@MrWarrenLO
This highlights a big problem with animal comparisons: The ignore the unique details that separate humans from other animals. Yes we are animals, but we have unique mental traits that separate us from other animals - capacity for forethought, more ability to imagine alternatives and to communicate far more precise information than screeches, growls, and barks allow for. All this gives us MUCH more power/ability to overrule our animal instincts- not complete power, but MORE of it
filrabat 3 months ago
@filrabat
If you honestly believe that you can stop teenagers fucking irresponsibly, go for it.
gabiotta 3 months ago
@gabiotta
I'm not talking about realism on the species level. Knight (VHEMT spokesperson) himself admits the chances of ALL of us voluntary ceasing procreation are "between slim and none". Phil. ANs definitely agree (though many, including me, aren't VHEMTers). All I'm saying is that if we convince even only a tiny fraction to forego children based on our arguments, it still does some good. As for realism - depends on whether it's the individual or species level, This is the crux, I guess.
filrabat 3 months ago
@filrabat
Then we are in accord. Perhaps we think it does good for different reasons, but that is a mute point.
gabiotta 3 months ago
Your a voice of reason to listnen to your videos is like listning to gold :)
All love from me Jasmine
Eopyk 3 months ago
It is mental masturbation though. Even if you are given all of your points, which is a very big ask because the whole thing is constructed to diminish the worth of the positive, front loading it completely.
The possibility of stopping life doing the only thing it is actually designed to do, reproduce, is zero. Hollywood sci-fi bullshit.
That makes it just a game that you have decided to participate in.
gabiotta 3 months ago
@gabiotta
The question of whether or not it is ethical to have children is INDEPENDENT of the point of whether we can get everyone to act ethically. We are just explaining why it is unethical (causes unnecessary harms)...and like anything else, for example purposely drunk driving - we can call people on the unethic. Would you say it is mental masturbation to tell people not to drive drunk? Or not to harm others for their own satisfaction?
trick0171 3 months ago
@trick0171
There is no analogy between those two propositions. It is a testament to your silly group think on this subject that you can so glibly liken the very mechanism that allowed the concept of ethics to come into being and a derangement of the senses.
It is a bullshit rhetorical device worthy a two bit fanatic, nothing more.
If you cannot see the difference between those two propositions, the why would I continue this conversation?
see 3:52 for further details.
gabiotta 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
Because you did talk about things you do not understand, and in a way that you are an authority on those things.You did not block me on my first comment on your channel. Rather, you started a conversation with me, and only after I explained something to you that you (obviously) have no education on, only then you blocked me. I was not insulting to you on your channel, but you were plenty to me.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 3 months ago
You can use the words "mental masturbation" all you like. It is called logic and reason. Something that you don't seem to understand. Again, you make a claim without backing it up, and when you do try to back it up you do so with either poor reasoning such as suggesting that value does not exist, consciousness does not exits, pain does not exist, and so fourth. You do this with nothing backing up such claims and tons of evidence that they do exist.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 3 months ago
And then as soon as someone tries to reason with you you plug your ears and say "mental masturbation". Sorry, if you don't want to be viewed as an "idiot who talks aobut things he doesn't understand" then either stop talking about things you don't understand, or actually educate yourself on the things you want to discuss. And stop acting like you are an authority when you aren't even close.
Intellectual honesty is not really too much to ask.
Thanks.
(END 3)
trick0171 3 months ago
@trick0171 Trick you have come to show what an ass hole you really are. You hate life and disgusting peice of shit who wants the world to end with you in a extremist collectivist manner we should all accept your values as the value.
You weak and you cannot accept the absurd indiffrence of nature that is what I notice with most you anti-anatalists you are as Bob Chaos once said to Gary often atheists who wished you where religous.
Face it morality is subjective, Values are as well.
Eopyk 3 months ago
@trick0171 P 2 Someone who values life as a gift will just see giving life as giving a gift ! All based on values.
Your philosophy could be compared to cutting once foot of just because it has a scar.
It is useless and amounts to nothingness.
Your weakness to accept the cold indifrence of mother nature is another great problem and you inablity to see value in joy and happiness. All values go from assumtpion that suffering is th absolute and that suffering is only bad this is wrong.
Eopyk 3 months ago
@trick0171 You understand logic ? Like all objectivist you just commit one logical fallcy after the next.
Your ideas are nothings apealing to assumption about unborn individual and living with falalcy of the none-existing objective morality that does not exist have never existed and will never exist morality is subjective and exist in your head no place else.
Logic what logic is there to apeal to none-existense ? To see suffering as the deafut and consider pain signals to be bad ?
Eopyk 3 months ago
@Eopyk
Three comments and not one word against the actual argument presented. Statements and insults are not arguments, and neither are the obvious misunderstanding and blunders you hold.
* Again, there is not an appeal to non-existence...how many times does this need to be addressed? The appeal (for the value) is to EXISTENCE...and the creation or prevention of such.
Have a good day.
trick0171 3 months ago
To use a sports analogy: Keep your eye on the ball.
Friendough 3 months ago
It is asinine philosophy. I have spent the last couple of days looking at it and is a complete distraction from the actual problems that face us as a species. I might as well get angry with David Icke saying that the elites are all lizards. There are plenty of reprehensible ideas might actually impact people, this is not one of them.
The only advice I could give people about it is to smile politely then wave and drive on.
gabiotta 3 months ago
@gabiotta It "is a complete distraction from the actual problems that face us as a species."
"The only advice I could give people about it is to smile politely then wave and drive on."
That is exactly my opinion on the matter.
I am embarrassed to say I don't know what an 'effilist" is. Should I?
dewinthemorning 3 months ago
@dewinthemorning
Efilist is the term Inmendham has come up with to seperate himself from other less hard line antinatalists.
Efil = life backwards. Very clever, sure to catch on with the kids. :)
gabiotta 3 months ago
@gabiotta "Efil = life backwards. Very clever, sure to catch on with the kids. :)"
Ha-ha, and lol! Ever since I was a child and loved doing this I have seen many children do it - pronouncing or writing their names or any other word backward. Your irony (in this situation) didn't go unnoticed. :)
dewinthemorning 3 months ago
"monkeys are gonna fuck and have babies"... yes true, however we're just a little more philosophically capable than that, sorry.
ImDed2 3 months ago
@ImDed2
Nobody is philosophically capable after four pints and there is a pretty girls smiling at them.
gabiotta 3 months ago
I think it is a wise move to give this a miss for the future. It is a silly idea that will never be more than a subject for arguments.
Population control is one thing but this anti-natalist idea is nihilistic fantasy talk, to my mind.
MacNutz2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@HannibalBarca13 "rational reasonable person" Not gonna happen.
bamboo4tameshigiri 3 months ago
Spot on
rozeboosje 3 months ago
Thank you for this one, Gabiotta. While all this foofaraw continues, the planet's atmospheric and surface temperatures continue to rise, as do the oceans, as do the greenhouse gases. It would be rather difficult to 'change the world' when the surface temp. exceeds 65 degrees celsius and sulfur dioxide levels are rising to the point of extinguishing all life. I view most of this debate on the 'whichness of the why' as essentially worthless.
TheMercilessEye 3 months ago 3
Description box says it all. Agreed.
socrates856 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
Biology creates experiences that ARE positive or negative to the creature that has to endure them. And of course survival of the fittest was the mechanism that has created these POSITIVE and NEGATIVE experiences. The fact that you think consciousness and experience (such as pain and suffering) does not exist is unscientific gibberish.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 3 months ago
"YOUR experience that is the difference the rest of us have had different experience. "
My experience is based on my objective neurostructure at any one time. Noone ever said all experience is the same, just that we biologically have similar structures which include the capacity to experience pain and suffering.
Maybe you are a cyborg and do not have the capacity to experience these things. Maybe that is why you cannot understand the what such experience entails and that it exists.
(END 2)
trick0171 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
Who ever said is wasn't part of out biology? That is our very argument, that it is. If you actually understood the argument you would realize this.
"and have no more validity in importance then anything else"
Again, experience is the ONLY thing that derives "importance", so hosts all of the validity.
(MORE 1)
trick0171 3 months ago
"and it sure as hell doesn't give you the right to end all life..."
I am addressing not bringing new humans into existence, which is entirely different than ending existing human life. Of course you have no fair counter argument against what I am saying, so all you can do is whine that I am looking to end existing life even though that is not the argument being made.
(MORE 2)
trick0171 3 months ago
Please stop. You already blocked me and removed my comments which were presented in a fair, calm, and thoughtful manner on your channel....for no reason other than you did not have the capacity to dispute them fairly.
You obviously are not about a fair argument. You are quite nasty and will cheat the argument in any way that you can. Either actually address the points made or please get lost.
Much appreciated.
(END 3)
trick0171 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
Riiiiiight, negative experiences are not important. We are wasting our time with anesthetic when someone comes into emergency. There is no significance to negative experience at all. The only reason to give a person anesthetic is because their screams are annoying, it has nothing to do with the negative experience they are having.
And you call me the lunatic?
trick0171 3 months ago
We'll have an intervention on your ass if you talk about those numb nuts again. With pizza and with cold beer...uh, with warm beer. Cherrios : )
phenixwryter 3 months ago
The fact that diana boston supports antinatalism is reason enough for me to think its a good thing...the last thing we want is that hairy old wonky toothed bint reporducing
Coughlan616 3 months ago 15
@Coughlan616
I reckon mother nature has put a fail safe in the whole male erectile system that rather counts that out, no?
gabiotta 3 months ago
@gabiotta best to be on the safe side though eh? belt and braces
Coughlan616 3 months ago
@Coughlan616
Either way I'd rather have her than on my side than Brett Keane.
MrWarrenLO 3 months ago
@MrWarrenLO Really? well brett keane embraced antinatalism just before he quit youtube...so yeah
Coughlan616 3 months ago
@Coughlan616
For fucks sake, you can't rely on that asshole for anything.
MrWarrenLO 3 months ago
@Coughlan616 "hairy old wonky toothed" thought you were describing yourself mate!
d0llsnatch 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
That is like saying you need evidence that chemicals exist other than being a configuration of atoms. Its absurd.
Are you seriously suggesting that animals do not experience? This is a yes or no question so answer. Do animals experience? Yes or no?
You cannot expect people to take you seriously.
Also, what is wrong with you? Seriously? Do you have typing turrets?
trick0171 3 months ago
tourettes
trick0171 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
And chemicals are made of molecules, and molecules are made of atoms, etc. Consciousness is a whole ...derived of parts in action, just as "chemicals" are a whole derived of parts in action.
Downward causation is of key scientific importance, ie. whole having an effect on parts which in turn have an effect on the whole. Most cognitive scientists are not reductionists. Maybe you are?
trick0171 3 months ago
Anyway, this all stemmed from negative utilitarian-type thinking. It's well-known that NU in its unqualified form mandates the destruction of all life (it's absurd - and is normally thrown out upon being pushed to its logical conclusion).
Qualified versions of NU can be very strong, though.
IdaMiaDot 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
Consciousness is a phenomena that occurs via a playthrough of specific configurations of matter and energy. No scientist is going to agree with you that animals are not conscious and do not experience. You are out of your gord.
Thanks.
trick0171 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
All meaning and value is within consciousness. There is no purpose or meaning other than what consciousness experiences. Therefore it is quite relevant.
trick0171 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
It is unnecessary to non-conscious matter and energy that holds no such desire to obtain pleasure, no value of such. I, on the other hand, am conscious.
Thanks.
trick0171 3 months ago
@trick0171 I really don't think Benatar's asymmetry works. As far as I can see it's just a word trick. Deprivation is an emotional state (normally negative) i.e. a subset of suffering. The lack of deprived feelings is included in the lack of suffering. No suffering = no deprivation. If you say there is no experience of pleasure then it's clear.
i) Positive mental states are good.
ii) No experience of positive or negative mental states (neutral).
iii) Good > neutral.
HOW can this be defeated..?
IdaMiaDot 3 months ago
@IdaMiaDot
You are missing what the values or lack of values applies to:
1) Positive mental states are good ONLY TO mental states
2) Negative mental states are bad ONLY TO mental states
3) No experience of positive or negative mental states is neither bad nor good FOR non-mental states
(MORE 1)
trick0171 3 months ago
Good > Neutral FOR an existing mental state ....NOT for a non-existing mental state
Negative < Neutral FOR an existing mental state...NOT for a non-existing mental state
Again it is the difference between creating positive value at the expense of negative value that is not needed (neither state is) by non-mental states. The value only happens FOR a mental state. This is key to the asymmetry.
Cya :)
(END 2)
trick0171 3 months ago
Nice.
sugelanren 3 months ago
@HannibalBarca13
You seem to misunderstand what the asymmetry is as well. Prevention of harm is the prevention of the value OF harm (a state where harm exists). The creation of pleasure from a non-value state is unnecessary as there is no deprivation by not creating such pleasure. Again, it is the difference between prevention and UNNECESSARY creation.
trick0171 3 months ago
@AirstripOneProle
Until I copied and pasted I didn't make the mental leap. I thought I would be some foisty old intellectual droning on about the worth of existence.
You can imagine my joy when his wonderfulness popped up!
gabiotta 3 months ago
It is a smart choice of you not to make videos against arguments you do not fully understand (such as asymmetry, which has to do with prevention of harm vs. unnecessary creation of pleasure - rather than "pain outweighing pleasure")
Take care.
trick0171 3 months ago
@trick0171
Well, pardon me for paraphrasing.
gabiotta 3 months ago
@gabiotta
It's not a paraphrase, it's a misunderstanding of when value happens. :)
trick0171 3 months ago
Comment removed
VLOGLINKS 3 months ago
Things that will help end overpopulation NOW:
1. Comprehensive sex education from Yr6 - Y12, with an emphasis on safe sex
2. All contraceptives tax free, and emergency contraception available 24hrs.
3. Remove all government support for IVF and reproductive services (including those accessed by the lezzies... if people need help having their own kids, they need to pay for it)
4. End the "baby bonus" in Australia ($4000 at birth) and other cash incentives to have kids across the Western world.
FantasmaBAnco 3 months ago
5. Change the culture around birth and childrearing. For starters, those with kids have to be honest about it, ALL of it. Not just the giggles and the baby talk, but also the ripped vaginas, constant crying, sometimes years of sleeplessness, emergency ward stories, poo, vomit, piss, painting with poo... ALL of it. Then people can make a more informed decision about whether they want to bring kids into the world, rather than just believe the bullshit our culture pumps out about "the family".
FantasmaBAnco 3 months ago
@FantasmaBAnco
I agree with all of that except number three. I dislike the idea of a two tear health system or of having children being a luxury only some people can afford.
gabiotta 3 months ago
@g Hmmm... IVF puts a woman's body under incredible strain (particularly if she needs multiple cycles) and may lead to an elevated risk of cancer, while the rate of congenital birth defects in IVF kids is nearly twice those of kids conceived naturally. If we fixed international adoption laws, people would probably be less inclined to opt for these (expensive for the tax payer) reproductive services.
FantasmaBAnco 3 months ago
@FantasmaBAnco
Then perhaps outlawing IVF.... although I am not comfortable with that either. It is a tricky one.
gabiotta 3 months ago
@g From an economic standpoint, it'd be interesting to see what would happen to the reproductive health sector if the government reduced or removed subsidies. Are the costs of these services artificially inflated to absorb this money? Is artificial insemination affordable for most people who want to access it.
True story: My mum did charity work through her church in a low SES suburb. One family had 8 neglected children (2 in foster care) and were still able to access AI services.
FantasmaBAnco 3 months ago
... for free. So they had twins, even though he was bedridden, and she couldn't parent the kids she already had. Does that make sense to you?
We have to think of reproduction as less of a right and more of a responsibility. It would be in our best interests to tinker with the definition of "reproductive rights", to consider the rights of any potential children over and above the right of someone with no hope of being a good parent. Most of society's ills can be put down to bad parenting.
FantasmaBAnco 3 months ago
Glad to see this vid mate, keep up the good work, rather glad im subbed.
ourorboros2 3 months ago
@ourorboros2
Thanks. :)
gabiotta 3 months ago
I think sometimes people need the occasional distraction like efilisim and hot monkey love.
OldeVampyr 3 months ago
@OldeVampyr
Everybody deserves hot monkey love. :)
gabiotta 3 months ago
think antinatalism covers those in favour of birth control (IE: most of us ) to the efilists there is a broad gamut of opinions between these two
sausage4mash 3 months ago
@sausage4mash
I hope I expressed that in this vid, ah well, I'm not making another...
gabiotta 3 months ago
@gabiotta yep , you did say as much .I've just got a strange compulsion to comment all the time :)
sausage4mash 3 months ago
Comment removed
sausage4mash 3 months ago
always appreciate your ¶oints of view=ma¥be we can change Topic
=good idea
√√
just tell them to : "take oƒƒ"..... to the great white North≈
:)(:
coooOOoooocøOOøooo
f417h2GRACE 3 months ago
@f417h2GRACE
Thanks lovely, both for taking the time to watch and for brightening up my comments thread.
gabiotta 3 months ago
Indeed :) I don't even know or care what anti-natalism or efilism is to be honest.
I do,however, have quite a strong dislike and lack of respect for Gary Inmendom doom gloom bloom whatever.
DeeDemonwitch 3 months ago
Comment removed
VLOGLINKS 3 months ago
@VLOGLINKS
As I said in the video, those ideas are fairly harmless well meaning. My particular ire is aimed at the extremists and I have heard the words coming directly from them. Believing lies? Bullshit. You are either ignoring the worst excesses or you are not up to speed with what is going on... making you an....idiot..
gabiotta 3 months ago
Comment removed
VLOGLINKS 3 months ago
Comment removed
VLOGLINKS 3 months ago
Antinatalism sounds like something Onision would be into.
macandease 3 months ago
@macandease cept it categorically doesn't cos he's a narcissistic self involved parent-to-be, where as AN is fundamentally about choosing not to procreate due to recognition of the potential harm/suffering one is responsible for subjecting a consciousness to by creating it... deep breath.... not to mention the fact that consciousness did not request to be entered into the lottery of life in the first place.
SkidRowRadio 3 months ago
@SkidRowRadio Well he said in his old video i remember (He deleted it by now). That people shouldn't have children instead that they should adopt, He even said that he didn't want any children. But we all know how our special Gerggles is!
macandease 3 months ago
fucking monkeys you say eh?
SilverBuddha 3 months ago
As disturbing as it was, the gradual degradation into insane policy was oddly interesting.
It started from seemingly benevolent grounds and somehow grew into a monster. It was quite an interesting psychological "experiment"... to see how human psychology can degrade like that.
IdaMiaDot 3 months ago
@IdaMiaDot
There is often a game of one-up-man-ship that happens inside groups like this. A competition that stems from wanting to appear the most devout leads to a vortex of extremism.
gabiotta 3 months ago
I'm pretty much of the same mind. I'm not exactly quaking in my boots in fear of some anti-natalist army marching across the face of the Earth anytime soon. I'm a 'que sera sera-ist'. The chips are going to fall where they may and anyone thinking that they can 'solve' the 'ultimate problem' are just engaging in presumptuous arrogance and mental masturbation. No harm, no foul
HeavyTrafficAhead 3 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead Unfortunately, there is harm being done; in the form of mental harm towards the people who subscribe to it and live for it even though it's not going anywhere. I can't think of a less fulfilling life than being an antinatalist hardcore activist, and at the same time, since it's so painful to arouse antagonism like this it feeds the person's psychology to feel that he is right about life more and more. In that sense it's an obvious vicious circle.
tranquil87 3 months ago
@HeavyTrafficAhead Imagine the crisis Gary will face in something like 10 years or so from now. It will hit him hard how much time he has wasted into this.
tranquil87 3 months ago
@tranquil87 That will be the time to approach him with a term life insurance policy...
TheMercilessEye 3 months ago
It's adictive pwning them isn't it?
DarthAzabrush 3 months ago
@DarthAzabrush
Consider me in recovery from this point on.
gabiotta 3 months ago
You are waaaaaaaaaay to PC about such an asinine "philosophy"
iCalintz 3 months ago
@iCalintz
Why? It is asinine philosophy. I have spent the last couple of days looking at it and is a complete distraction from the actual problems that face us as a species. I might as well get angry with David Icke saying that the elites are all lizards. There are plenty of reprehensible ideas might actually impact people, this is not one of them.
The only advice I could give people about it is to smile politely then wave and drive on.
gabiotta 3 months ago 3