Bunning weed and other drugs also does that too you, it messes up your brains emotions
I’m misanthropic cause of humans they suck
do you believe people who aren't muslim should be anti natlist?
Imma be honest the deen changes you as a person if you go deep into it, unfortunatly 95% of people in this forum will not understand truly what I am saying, if you really live the deen for multiple years your way of thinking personlity and emotional state will change, you feel like a completely different person
whats wrong with taking urself out of the genepool?
I call it being smart.Waa sad, niyahow. To hate thyself and this existence itself that much.
Anti-natalism does not even make sense from an Atheistic perspective. Because if you're a Nihilist about life, then in a fundamental way, there is no hierarchy of values or morals. What is bad and good is non-existent and no intrinsic worth can be put upon anything. So, no, anti-Natalism or pro-Natalism is equally not a conversation. Even the analysis of such is worthless, presuppositions are not worth processing (as any measure of "worth" is worthless). Associating suffering with negative connotations and pleasure, with positive, is conceptually unfounded if you draw a concordant line. In fact, the whole thing in its practice is not humanly tenable because any form of analysis or processing, a fundamental human condition for survival, is itself a strong contradiction to it. The self-denial of life in that case is paradoxical in a way. Because a real nihilist should not claim to be anything at all actually, even a nihilist.
Misanthropy for actually thinking about how useless of having kids in this era is?
No because most atheists go by pleasure harm principle so want to reduce as much sufering as possible,, having more children woul only increase suffering in the world
I told you if they were consistent. The pleasure-harm principle is part of the contradiction. There is no way to justify it through their paradigm over anything else.
The problem with your argument is atheism doesn't even exist anyway so if we are going based on the reality of their beliefs then none of it makes sense
It's not my argument. It's literally testing their positions and their actions contradict what they stand for, which is basically nothing, conjured up stuff which is borrowed from foreign principles they seem to say they don't adhere to. Harm-pleasure principle is just one thing among many that showcase ignorance, as I already laid out in my first response to you. To reiterate, morality, which includes this pleasure-harm principle is in theory just an aesthetic to them, since they have no legs to stand on. I don't think you even disagree with this but want to take a contrary position for argument's sake.
You don't understand what I am saying, if a person were to take on the pleasure harm principle, then anti natalism would make sense.It's not my argument. It's literally testing their positions and their actions contradict what they stand for, which is basically nothing, conjured up stuff which is borrowed from foreign principles they seem to say they don't adhere to. Harm-pleasure principle is just one thing among many that showcase ignorance, as I already laid out in my first response to you. To reiterate, morality, which includes this pleasure-harm principle is in theory just an aesthetic to them, since they have no legs to stand on. I don't think you even disagree with this but want to take a contrary position for argument's sake.
I understand, but it's not quite true that anti-Natalism is a logical conclusion from the harm-pleasure principle, just a corrosive feature of it as it is overall degenerative. If you check the pleasure harm-principle, what anti-Natalism is banking on is several flawed arguments within them -- many fallacies. Then again, all of it, even the conversation is quite useless for all of it. It's that they don't know it. The pleasure-harm principle is a worthless hedonistic ideology, not an actual principle backed by true meta-ethics. I am getting to the heart of it that lacks any substance, not discussing the fake upon a fake. I understand why those fools say what they say but it is in so many layers nonsensical, and that's the end of it. Because they first have to justify any of the frameworks they use to pave their flawed ideological landscape, which is impossible for them. How are you going to take seriously what they admit (the actual academics that claim to adhere to those ideas) is nothing more than aesthetics? It's not worth our time to discuss the inner ideas of a non-idea.
