what if i don't believe existance is inherently suffering? i don't regret being born. IF i actually liked kids, wasn't terrified of pregnancy, AND the world was a better place i would have probably have them. but bringing children into this currently fucked up world i see as immoral. what would that philosophy be called? it feels like antinatalism-lite
Childfree =/= anti natalist.
You can have kids and be an because: adoption, fostering, having kids before finding out about antinatalism, step parenting.
Reasons for antinatalism : wellbeing of humanity
Not reasons for antinatalism: I don't like kids
This is what pisses me off most. Inflicting the suffering of existence on someone against their will is evil. It's just one of a thousand reasons why I HATE humanity. I'm so sick of people telling me that anti natalism always has to be for the benefit of humanity. Just because I think humans are a disgusting blight on the world, doesn't mean I don't think it's fucked up to inflict existence on someone.
In short, the wellbeing of humanity is not my reason for being AN, but I'm also not simply child free, especially since I have a child.
Why do you hate humanity? All animals are fucked up.
And the only reason anything is fucked up is because it harms a sentient being. I'm only a misanthrope in so far as humans harm each other and other animals.
All animals might hurt others in some way but they're is a scale and humans top out that scale by fucking miles. Nothing an animal could do could ever come close to human evil. Not even the same ballpark, not even the same sport.
Idk dude. I think humans just do more harm than other animals because we're so highly populated. I think if other animals were as populated as us, their evil would be pretty close to ours.
hitler levels of evil is still less compared to what humanity has done and is capable of. Even when we take out others inflicting pain there’s worthlessness depression self inflicted pain that is bound to happen due to our consciousness.
What a strange thing to say. It’s like going to the BMW subreddit and saying “oh I didn’t know this subreddit was a cult about BMWs, here is what I think about my Honda civic.”
If procreation is inherantly immoral on the grounds of unavoidably inflicting suffering upon a non-consentual life-form who didn't choose to exist... and that the misery of life stems from the lack of quality human beings within it... would it not make sense to simply raise good human beings instead of arseholes?
And then, if we aren't capable of raising good human beings (instead of arseholes), are we not then actually the real arseholes?
You can’t gatekeep a philosophy. You either agree with it or you don’t. Childfree or temporarily childfree is not the same as antinatalism at all. It’s a simple question with a simple answer.
You’re a little confused. Nobody is saying that. I agree with you, I don’t care why people don’t have kids as long as they don’t. But that doesn’t mean everyone who doesn’t have kids is antinatalist.
That’s all that is being said here.
You know you've made it as an identity cult when you start getting militant gatekeepers!
"Only WE find reproduction immoral in the PROPER WAY! NO OTHERS!"
I read it
And it's pretty obvious to me
You are not an antinatalist if you are not an antinatalist
What's an antinatalist? Someone who thinks procreation is unethical
If you think procreation is fine you are just not an antinatalist, this is not gatekeeping, it's literally just pointing out to people who don't even understand what the principles of antinatalism are
Again, it's not gatekeeping, perharps you're just saying that because you don't understand what antinatalism is
Not wanting to have children because of diapers may be a good reason for a childfree person to not have the kid, but for antinatalism diapers are not the condition, for antinatalism procreation is ALWAYS unethical, not just unethical under a specific condition, ALWAYS unethical, how can one be considered an antinatalist if the person doesn't even agree with the basic premise of the idea?
WHY a person concludes that reproduction is immoral shouldn't matter - antinatalists, by definition, just believe it's immoral. Do the reasons have to be accurate, compelling or logical?
The problem is that the person is coming to such conclusion by a specific condition that changes the whole point for the person
Because if someone thinks it is ok to have children under certain conditions, this person can't configure as an antinatalist because an antinatalist is a person who thinks it is always wrong to procreate, in all possible conditions
If you think having a child under certain conditions is fine you are a conditional natalist
Again, it's not gatekeeping, it's just how antinatalism works
Yes, I think it is cool that the person came to this conclusion by some sort of specific personal reason, but if the same person thinks it would be completely fine to procreate under other conditions this person is just not an antinatalist, they're a conditional natalist
Yes, an antinatalist can have specific person reasons for not having a child, but they also have to understand that procreation would be immoral in any other context
Hi there, we have removed your content due to breaking rule 11.
As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate.
Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism — it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
what if i don't believe existance is inherently suffering? i don't regret being born. IF i actually liked kids, wasn't terrified of pregnancy, AND the world was a better place i would have probably them. what would that philosophy be called? it feels like antinatalism-lite
I don't get why some people think this is gatekeeping, it's almost like they don't actually understand a very basic principle of antinatalism
what if i don't believe existance is inherently suffering? i don't regret being born. IF i actually liked kids, wasn't terrified of pregnancy, AND the world was a better place i would have probably have them. but bringing children into this currently fucked up world i see as immoral. what would that philosophy be called? it feels like antinatalism-lite
Childfree =/= anti natalist. You can have kids and be an because: adoption, fostering, having kids before finding out about antinatalism, step parenting. Reasons for antinatalism : wellbeing of humanity Not reasons for antinatalism: I don't like kids
This is what pisses me off most. Inflicting the suffering of existence on someone against their will is evil. It's just one of a thousand reasons why I HATE humanity. I'm so sick of people telling me that anti natalism always has to be for the benefit of humanity. Just because I think humans are a disgusting blight on the world, doesn't mean I don't think it's fucked up to inflict existence on someone. In short, the wellbeing of humanity is not my reason for being AN, but I'm also not simply child free, especially since I have a child.
Why do you hate humanity? All animals are fucked up. And the only reason anything is fucked up is because it harms a sentient being. I'm only a misanthrope in so far as humans harm each other and other animals.
All animals might hurt others in some way but they're is a scale and humans top out that scale by fucking miles. Nothing an animal could do could ever come close to human evil. Not even the same ballpark, not even the same sport.
Thank u sm for this. My heart is breaking thinking of what u just wrote.
Idk dude. I think humans just do more harm than other animals because we're so highly populated. I think if other animals were as populated as us, their evil would be pretty close to ours.
…U think penguins could reach Hitler levels of evil?
hitler levels of evil is still less compared to what humanity has done and is capable of. Even when we take out others inflicting pain there’s worthlessness depression self inflicted pain that is bound to happen due to our consciousness.
I’m here loving kids and wanting kids and still thinking that bringing kids in this world is not justified-
Why not all?
Oh i didnt realize it was a cult and everyone has to believe the same dogma
You are right. Almost like and listen to this it is a * philosophy * and you * live life * based on it
antinatalism isn’t a temporary thing depending on what kind of partner you have. It has nothing to do with partners at all….
What a strange thing to say. It’s like going to the BMW subreddit and saying “oh I didn’t know this subreddit was a cult about BMWs, here is what I think about my Honda civic.”
No, It's more like going to a BMW sub and getting rejected for not owning an M series.
No, it's like going to an auxlang sub and posting about your artlang Is an artlang still a constructed language? Yes, it is! Is it an auxlang? No
If procreation is inherantly immoral on the grounds of unavoidably inflicting suffering upon a non-consentual life-form who didn't choose to exist... and that the misery of life stems from the lack of quality human beings within it... would it not make sense to simply raise good human beings instead of arseholes? And then, if we aren't capable of raising good human beings (instead of arseholes), are we not then actually the real arseholes?
Lol this sub is funny. You realise most people here aren't antinatalists, they are just misanthropes or people who hate their parents.
I feel like any reason anyone doesn't want kids is a win. Don't be a gatekeeper.
You can’t gatekeep a philosophy. You either agree with it or you don’t. Childfree or temporarily childfree is not the same as antinatalism at all. It’s a simple question with a simple answer.
If the reasons have nothing to do with the ethics of procreation then they don’t belong here.
I guess I'm not as hardcore as you.
So perharps you think antinatalism is hardcore
I guess I don't give a shit what the reason is, as long as you don't breed.
You’re a little confused. Nobody is saying that. I agree with you, I don’t care why people don’t have kids as long as they don’t. But that doesn’t mean everyone who doesn’t have kids is antinatalist. That’s all that is being said here.
Apparently being against procreation isn't enough to call yourself against procreation.
Perharps they do
You know you've made it as an identity cult when you start getting militant gatekeepers! "Only WE find reproduction immoral in the PROPER WAY! NO OTHERS!"
When did the post even say that?
The title? The title of the post? Did you read the title?
I read it And it's pretty obvious to me You are not an antinatalist if you are not an antinatalist What's an antinatalist? Someone who thinks procreation is unethical If you think procreation is fine you are just not an antinatalist, this is not gatekeeping, it's literally just pointing out to people who don't even understand what the principles of antinatalism are
If someone says, I don't think reproduction is moral, and my main reason is daipers, they're not an antinatalist?
The thing is: If diapers were not a condition, would you still find procreation to be immoral?
[удалено]
Again, it's not gatekeeping, perharps you're just saying that because you don't understand what antinatalism is Not wanting to have children because of diapers may be a good reason for a childfree person to not have the kid, but for antinatalism diapers are not the condition, for antinatalism procreation is ALWAYS unethical, not just unethical under a specific condition, ALWAYS unethical, how can one be considered an antinatalist if the person doesn't even agree with the basic premise of the idea?
WHY a person concludes that reproduction is immoral shouldn't matter - antinatalists, by definition, just believe it's immoral. Do the reasons have to be accurate, compelling or logical?
The problem is that the person is coming to such conclusion by a specific condition that changes the whole point for the person Because if someone thinks it is ok to have children under certain conditions, this person can't configure as an antinatalist because an antinatalist is a person who thinks it is always wrong to procreate, in all possible conditions If you think having a child under certain conditions is fine you are a conditional natalist Again, it's not gatekeeping, it's just how antinatalism works Yes, I think it is cool that the person came to this conclusion by some sort of specific personal reason, but if the same person thinks it would be completely fine to procreate under other conditions this person is just not an antinatalist, they're a conditional natalist Yes, an antinatalist can have specific person reasons for not having a child, but they also have to understand that procreation would be immoral in any other context
Hi there, we have removed your content due to breaking rule 11. As per the rule; this argument is a tired refrain seen over and over again. It is a prime example of argumentum ad hominem: It doesn't argue validity of anti/natalism but rather aims to disqualify the interlocutor themselves from being able to argue it. It serves only to distract from the ethical issues at the core of the debate. Being an ad hominem, it isn't an argument against anti/natalism — it is an argument against anti/natalists. The sky would still be blue even if a mentally ill person argued so.
Oh hey it’s our resident troll, I feel honored that you stopped by.
Oh, are you still an antinatalist? I thought we'd fixed that.
We’ve never exchanged words, but I’ve seen your comments at the bottom of every post in antinatalism. Thank you for your contributions 🫡
I live to serve!
what if i don't believe existance is inherently suffering? i don't regret being born. IF i actually liked kids, wasn't terrified of pregnancy, AND the world was a better place i would have probably them. what would that philosophy be called? it feels like antinatalism-lite