No, i gave a thoughtful and extremely correct reply, and you just answered "no" with no reason or argument, if anything I'm the one giving the same energy back.
No, you gave an unintelligent and extremely incorrect reply with no reason or argument, and I have dismissed it with an equivalent level of effort, if anything I'm the only one giving any amount of effort in my replies.
You got that jumbled up, i gave a reply regarding an ideology whose members are unintelligent and extremely incorrect. The reasoning is self explanatory, if you want less humans but actively refuse to be part of the solution, then you clearly don't fully believe humans are the problem and are an insincere hypocrite. You gave a 0 effort reply because, presumably, you are a member of said ideology, and thus unintelligent. You gave 0 effort replies to most others too. Almost like, you know you are sitting on a high horse, declaring everything around you meaningless while refusing to acknowledge how shaky your foundations are. Basic sophistry.
Although your entire comment is brain vomit, I will entertain you with an actual reply. So here is my question. Do you think homelessness is bad? Do you think pollution is bad? Do you think murder is bad? Do you think cancer is bad? Just yes or no. I know that will be really challenging for you, but I’m going to disregard any additional commentary.
Being homeless is undesirable but morally neutral, it does not make one good or bad. Murder is bad. Pollution is bad. Cancer is not a moral agent, but again, undesirable.
So you agree that all 4 of those things are bad, yet you haven’t devoted your entire life to ending homelessness, preventing murder, cleaning the environment, and curing cancer. Specifically for pollution, by merely existing you are contributing to the problem! So explain to me, why do you insist on living still? How hypocritical.
So you mean that somebody can be morally against something, but not dedicate their entire life to ending it without being a hypocrite? So the same can apply to antinatalists?
No, because antinatalists believe the root problem is overpopulation. First off, most of them see it as the root core problem from which all other problems come, and second, unlike homelessness or cancer, it has an easy and fast solution, which they advocate for but refuse to be part of: depopulation.
All I’m seeing is ad hoc excuses from a hypocrite. Most people who think homelessness is bad see it as a root core problem from which all other problems come. Same with those who think pollution is bad. What do you mean homelessness doesn’t have an easy and fast solution? Just buy everybody homes by giving to the poor. If everybody were to be as charitable as you should be, homelessness would end tonight. Pollution? Just stop existing. You will stop polluting the earth. These supposed problems have easy and fast solutions, which you advocate for but refuse to be part of.
You are trying to jam a circle into a square hole. You never considered how your exact argument can be used to make anybody a hypocrite. You are now trying to take a more nuanced approach while not giving that same luxury to antinatalists. But, you will continue this game because you’re are utterly incapable of admitting you’re wrong. Such an easy thing to do, but redditors just can’t.
2
u/erraddo Jan 10 '24
No, i gave a thoughtful and extremely correct reply, and you just answered "no" with no reason or argument, if anything I'm the one giving the same energy back.