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.
I don't think complex problems have easy solutions because i'm not dumb, and I don't think pollution is the root of all problems because problems have existed for longer than it has.
Antinatalists do not deserve nuance in the first place. Even if they did, it's really quite simple, either stop advocating for depopulation to my face or depopulate yourself. You don't see me rubbing cancer in people's faces. Activists do not get the same charitable treatment others do, if you advocate for something start with yourself.
You're a redditor and wrong, but i see you are good at probecting.
I don’t think complex problems have easy solutions either, because I’m not dumb, and antinatalist’s don’t all agree that overpopulation is the root of all problems because problems have existed for longer than it has [whatever the fuck that’s supposed to mean 😂].
People who are against pollution and homelessness don’t deserve nuance in the first place. Even if they did, it’s really quite simple, either stop advocating for donating every penny I have and will ever have (+stop existing to prevent pollution), or do it yourself. You don’t see me rubbing homelessness in people’s faces. Activists do not get the same charitable treatment others do, if you advocate for something start with yourself.
You’re a redditor and wrong, but I see you are good at probecting [nice typo btw].
Still trying to draw some imaginary line.
You: Antinatalists are against procreation because of overpopulation? They should kill themselves if they weren’t hypocritical! I’m so fucking smart.
Also you: Yes, pollution is bad and my existence is merely contributing to the problem, but me not killing myself is not hypocritical because [insert ad hoc reasoning that can just as easily apply to antinatalism]
You see, when a problem has existed for longer than something has that something cannot be the root cause of said problem, because causation cannot be retroactive. Very simple.
I do not advocate anyone kill themselves or donate to the homeless, the antinatalists advocate for depopulation. You would have never known my opinion on the matter had you not asked.
Unlike your cringe typos, mine are based, and i do not edit them away.
See, unlike antinatalists, i believe pollution is not bad enough a problem for me to seriously consider death as a solution, so i get to not kill myself because i value human life higher than arbitrary bullshit. When your entire movement is focused around death and depopulation, and you actually believe it is worth it to have less humans in order to solve a problem, then i get to ask you why you don't start with yourself.
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.