4 ms·

So you don't see the difference between: 1. I'm not going to have children because it's WRONG, unethical and unjustifiable to inflict serious harm and sufferin

So you don't see the difference between: 1. I'm not going to have children because it's WRONG, unethical and unjustifiable to inflict serious harm and suffering (without their consent) 2. I'm not going to have children, because it will inconvenience ME, because then I'll have less time and money to jerk off and play video games, travel, etc? Or some temporary economic circumstance. Like even if you don't have children because you perceive the world to overpopulated at this moment in time, you're still pretty firmly in the (2) camp. There's quite a lot of people that claim to be antinatalists that are simply in the economic circumstances camp. And lots of things have changed now, contraceptives, less societal pressures, etc.

jimbokun 1y ago
Those are both antinatalist arguments.
- Johanx64 1y ago
  Have you bothered to, you know, do the bare minimum and check atleast the vulgaris definition of antinatalism.... on say, wikipedia? I'm not going to argue your private distorted perception and misunderstanding that falls completely outside of even the most pedestrian understanding of what antinatalism is - even the wikipedia, etc. (2) isn't an antinatalist argument. Now an antinatalist might try to convince a regular Joe-Schmoe not to have kids, by pointing out how much of an inconvenience it might be. And Joe-Schmoe might not have kids, because it would be incovenient for him and get in the way of more important things, like playing video games and jerking off.... or point out how expensive it would be economically and such. Which means Joe-Schmoe does not operate on, or even considers or contemplates the antinatalist argument at any point, in any shape or form. Which is to say Joe-Schmoe would absolutely have kids if it cost him less, there were different economical social pressures and so on, or if he simply... wanted to. Focal point here is the Joey-Schmoey and what he WANTS. That's all there is to it. That however does not make it into an antinatalist argument, nor does Joey Schmoey think in any antinatalist capacity at all. The fact I have to explain this also makes me suspect that... sadly not a lot of cerebral action is going here either....

jimbokun 1y ago

Those are both antinatalist arguments.

Johanx64 1y ago
Have you bothered to, you know, do the bare minimum and check atleast the vulgaris definition of antinatalism.... on say, wikipedia? I'm not going to argue your private distorted perception and misunderstanding that falls completely outside of even the most pedestrian understanding of what antinatalism is - even the wikipedia, etc. (2) isn't an antinatalist argument. Now an antinatalist might try to convince a regular Joe-Schmoe not to have kids, by pointing out how much of an inconvenience it might be. And Joe-Schmoe might not have kids, because it would be incovenient for him and get in the way of more important things, like playing video games and jerking off.... or point out how expensive it would be economically and such. Which means Joe-Schmoe does not operate on, or even considers or contemplates the antinatalist argument at any point, in any shape or form. Which is to say Joe-Schmoe would absolutely have kids if it cost him less, there were different economical social pressures and so on, or if he simply... wanted to. Focal point here is the Joey-Schmoey and what he WANTS. That's all there is to it. That however does not make it into an antinatalist argument, nor does Joey Schmoey think in any antinatalist capacity at all. The fact I have to explain this also makes me suspect that... sadly not a lot of cerebral action is going here either....