Brilliant! I did finally convince somebody to admit to their own hypocrisy. It never seem to work with vegans. Vegans are hypocrites when they continue to support crop deaths.
She hates us for existing and for using the things that others have created because they exist, does she not realize that if nobody reproduces, those things are no longer necessary? the last generation of humans would be cared for by machines, I don't see the problem, deep down she wishes us the worst because she doesn't have a valid argument against anti-natalism.
We are subjects to the state, which isn't legitimate, since it was created against the will of the ruled and is upheld by the monopoly on violence and brainwash. That means that we don't have any obligations to it. It's just there so that the "elite" can treat us like cattle. Lysander Spooner writes about this in No Treason and Natural Law. I think that if you are an antinatalist, you should also be an anticapitalist and individual anarchist.
And she is a breeder too, funny thing is she made that entire video in response to my comment after I called her a massive hypocrite for being a breeder and making AN videos, its like a p3do SA'ing someone then after saying they feel bad and preaching to others to not SA kids, Nobody would take them serious and would still hold them accountable for their crimes and its the same for breeders wanting to preach all high and mighty after breeding. Sure they can agree with the philosophy and not make more kids but they should never ever make videos on the subject as new people and natalist would rightly call her a hypocrite and it would de value our points.
@@ruehl3853that's like saying no one who's ever eaten eggs is allowed to talk about veganism. People ought to be encouraged to change their minds, not be silenced for coming to the correct conclusion.
@@moveleathe difference is eggs don’t have any feelings or emotions, they aren’t even alive yet in the yoke stage so what are you talking about, she had a kid and caused untold amounts of suffering, not even the same
@ruehl3853 the chickens forced to lay eggs en masse then who get slaughtered en mass certainly suffer. Asking for only gold star antinatalists is a great way to never convert anyone who's ever procreated. Personally, i think it's better to get more people on the side of doing less harm. If people with kids aren't allowed to speak, then fewer people will be around to convince others to become antinatalists. Also there will be less insight into what tactics work to convince people. Don't punish the behaviour you want to see. Calling someone a hypocrite for changing their mind to the morally better position, and going on to spread that message, says that they can't change for the better. Also it's inaccurate. Preaching antinatalism while trying to get pregnant, that's hypocrisy. Being convinced that you've done harm and changing your mind and actions to do no more of that harm and trying to get others to also change for the better is called growing as a person.
It doesn't matter. Death means the end of suffering. This means it was illusory in the first place. If life is suboptimal and if non existence is the ideal then suffering can't really hurt you because in death, it will be as though it never really happened at all. You're all like the chick who gets mad at her boyfriend when she wakes up coz he cheated on her in a dream lol.
@@danielstockley5631 here's the issue, first of you failed to assess the situation correctly, while yes when you die suffering doesn't matter but before that it obviously does, then again it's all negotiating horrors to make yourself feel better, until you are the one on the receiving end and all of a sudden the entire narrative changes only downplaying it when you aren't the victim, it's one of the many reasons why this world is a piece of shit the massive lack of empathy and the rationalization of horrors it's what keeps all of the man made horrors maintained.
I would live in the forest if it were allowed. A few years ago a man was thrown out of a cave where he had been living for over 20 years, with the excuse that he was an environmental risk. He lived with the bare minimum, collecting and growing some food, and had only a few pots, clothes and bottles. Meanwhile, people living in cities are flushing down the toilet with drinking water.
Even if you are living on a farm that "belongs" to your family and produce everything you need to eat yourself, the state will impose its taxes and laws on you, like the mafia it is.
@@danielstockley5631 You're wrong, I was born into a poor family and spent years living in a house without running water or electricity. When I was a child my room didn't even have a window, I would put a board in the hole in the wall to close it at night. I'm more than used to living without the comforts of modern society. I'm not living in the countryside because I don't have the money to buy land and pay all the absurd taxes the government charges, that's why my house is on my parents' land in the city (which I helped to buy). And as I said, if I try to live in any forested area and am discovered I will certainly be evicted by the government.
Yup, antinatalism is about refraining from procreation, so as long as the antinatalist doesn't reproduce, there is no cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy there.
Which is actually an argument that shows you're a hypocrite. Life = suffering. No life=no suffering. If I had a worldview that revolved around avoiding suffering to the point not creating more life, the path to end the suffering is right in front of you. All the excuses for not doing the deed amount to "well that causes more suffering for the people I leave behind, it's hard, I don't want to go through the extra suffering, etc." It's cope.
@juniper-ug3hs You've made my point. If I had a worldview that revolved around avoiding suffering by not creating more sufferers, I'd avoid creating more sufferers. My worldview does not revolve around removing all sufferers once they're alive, against their will. Thus, no hypocrisy.
@antinatalope and you can avoid future suffering by a self exit. Your worldview is inconsistent and thus hypocritical. Most people who exist are mentally resilient and are quite happy to keep existing. Therefore, the odds of playing "Russian roulette" with someone's life by creating them are quite low. If they turn out to be genetic mutants, high in neuroticism, and unable to survive under darwinian conditions, they are free to purchase a pod from Sweden or take some pills. Your whole philosophy boils down to " I'm cold, so everyone else has to wear sweaters."
@antinatalope your worldview is based on suffering. Yet you refuse to end your suffering. You're a coward and a hypocrite. I think that ANs are the epitome of crabs in the bucket. Life is hard for you. Everything is nihilistic. Therefore, those of us who enjoy life, find purpose and meaning in family, and are generally mentally healthy. If you don't like the game, don't play. Don't try to act like you're morally superior to the rest of us who don't want to shout our misery at the sky and live lives full of misery and anxiety.
She claims that because we are part of society (something we are forced into for survival) we are in not position to critique procreation. It reminds me of Jordan Peterson whose Rule #6 is "set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world." He acts to suppress his followers' critical thinking and appoints himself supreme adjudicator of reality.
She didn't claim it originally, another person did, and guess what, that broken record asshole is here, rn, in this comment section, making zero sense again and again
Show me the woods I can go live in permanently and legally in Britain, where I can build my own shelter, hunt or grow my own food, cut my own firewood, or peat, and I'm right there. I didn't know people went to work to make tablets and grow food out of kindness. I always thought they did it because they have no choice or they want more money. How naive of me.
@@emitsienim People don't do these things because it simply isn't convenient! Why is your own convenience more important than the lives and suffering of other humans?
Americans have a tendency to try on ideologies like shoes instead of thinking about their core values and reasoning their way towards an ideology. Sadly. I kind of believe she might be telling the truth.
@@adelMN2 lol are you serious ex-antinatalism just means she changed her mind. Meaning she is no longer one. How is that inconceivable to you. What do you think antinatalism is the one philosophy in the world that is completely unassailable, it has no flaws, couldn't possibly be wrong??? People get things wrong all the time. People change their mind all the time. I used to be an anarchist now I am no longer. See...its easy
Kind of a weird argument against antinatalism. Like yes we require other people to exist, hell maybe that is an argument against life in itself, a compelled cooperation of sorts.
It only feels compelled because we have to spend most of our waking life selling our time to make other people rich, all in exchange for an ever-deteriorating quality of life. I will never have children because subjecting a human to this environment is cruel and unusual punishment, but I hope that people start getting their shit together and working to make society better for the people who are stuck here either way.
"Hell maybe that is an argument against life in itself, a compelled cooperation of sorts" And yet here you all are, still yapping. Remember kids, down the road. Not across the street!
@@danielstockley5631 lmao love that you spread your comments through here like seeds and each one is dumber than the last, keep yapping monkey it gives me a good laugh in the morning
I think there are very few countries where someone can just be a squatter on uninhabited land and build a shelter or house. If someone has to purchase land, then they will have to sell their labor for many years to save up the money. Also, most people don't have the skills needed to feed themselves through hunting/gathering/farming. It's just an uphill battle to do what this woman is suggesting; you would have to be highly motivated and lucky to pull it off. It was the horrors of wage slavery gone-bad in my own life that convinced me of the virtues of antinatalism.
Antinatalists should be highly motivated to do things for themselves, because they don't want other procreated humans to exist. Most people will unfortunately only follow their own philosophy until it becomes inconvenient.
Unless medically aided suicide is freely available to any age or social status I'd say her point is moot. One of the reasons why I exercise and try to stay healthy is recognizing that to be reliant on elderly care would be expensive not guaranteed(just look at the cases of elderly people being abused in retirement homes). Besides which government in the world would want their livestock to be fully independent from their services or exploitation?
Funny thing is she made that entire video in response to my comment after I called her a massive hypocrite for being a breeder and making AN videos, its like a p3do SA'ing some kid then after saying they feel bad and preaching to others to not SA kids, nobody would take them serious and if they used lawrence logic of "oh i was just operating on autopilot" which may be true since they cant choose their attractions, people would still hold them accountable for their crimes and its the same for breeders wanting to preach all high and mighty after breeding. Sure they can agree with the philosophy and not make more kids but they should never ever make videos on the subject as new people and natalist would rightly call her a hypocrite and it would de value our points.
There is a youtuber called A Poetry Channel, who went extremely triggered, though she posted a text and not a video, after I pointed out that she reads Schopenhauer, Pessoa, Rilke and other pessimistic philosophers and poets while in fact being an optimist. She really played the victim card and in principle said that I was a frustrated male - she's not the skinniest so to speak - not accepting women standing on their own or some total BS like that just for exposing her.
Those things have nothing to do with antinatalism. Antinatalism isn't every person for themselves. Antinatalism at the very base is just that it's good to not procreate. I guess this falls back on the old idea that it's selfish to not have children. Which in itself is a weird statement, as it implies that it is preferable to not have children but that you should sacrifice yourself and have children anyway. There's nothing wrong with being an ex-antinatalist or ex- anything. We can all change opinions. It's unfair to say that somebody wasn't what they said they were. But in this case I would argue that she was uninformed about what antinatalism is. An antinatalist appreciate family and friends as much as anyone. Their children, too, if they have any. Antinatalists are like people in general. Meaning we aren't always consistent in actions. A vegan may eat meat on occasions. It doesn't change their values, philosophy, worldview or whatever. It just means they are people.
Why is it bad to procreate? Because it creates suffering humans? Why do you not want humans to suffer? Why do you continue to rely on suffering humans when you don't want human suffering to exist?
Same. Subjecting innocent souls to a life of wage slavery/servitude for elite capitalists and possibly dealing with perpetual poverty/struggle is not right. Life is just bills and taxes.
It's an unfortunate reality that those brought into the world must now work and endure suffering just to survive. However, this isn't done out of charity-those of us who exist now contribute by paying taxes and for the services we use. Once born, we're driven by our natural instincts to keep surviving, and that in itself is part of the burden of existence. Also, it's not just antinatalists; many natalists benefit from the work we do. Ultimately, we're all dependent on each other in some way, simply because we're already here. The main point is, it would have been better if life-on this planet or beyond-had never existed, sparing all beings from the inevitable suffering that comes with it.
If we're going by her "logic", yes - we benefit from offspring being wage slaves. However, we also suffer when offspring perform harmful acts, so it's more than a mute point.
I didnt even fall for that argument as a child myself. I truely commend your ability to engage with these people and not just automatically write them off as idiots
I did convince the woman in the video to admit to her own hypocrisy. Lawrence ironically has never replied to me with any comments. I don't know why. Probably because he is scared. He obviously doesn't want to lose the conveniences and benefits of living in and relying on a procreating society.
Would my refusal to take advantage of the procreational activities of others cause them not to procreate? I doubt it. If it did, then a case could be made that, though not engaging in procreation myself, I'm nevertheless supporting the activity, even though indirectly. But I don't believe that case can reasonably be made.
She says that one can't indentify themself an antinatalist cause they are living in a society which is supported and is able to exist by procreated people and procreating people. Let's asume that somehow the thesis that by living in the world that is built that way - you inherently do an immoral act that goes agains your antinatalist beliefs. But it doesn't make you non antinatalist.For example i think that moral discussion surrounding veganism is right, but i am not a vegan mysepf, so eat meat, but i acknowledge that i do an immoral act finacially supporting the slaughterhouses and what not. So even if a person is getting a baby, it still doesn't inherently makes them a hypocrite nor sweeps them out of antinatalists if they acknowledge the terrible act they have commited.
Actions matter more than words. Especially if there are victims involved, like animals, livestock, or babies forcibly bred into a world of suffering. So it is hypocrisy. Just words is called lip service. If you were physically harmed would you just want your attacker to just have words or to physically stop it? But if nonvegans are making efforts towards veganism as best as they can then that's good even if they struggle. Cause I know it's not easy. Though being a vegan is possible. Gary Francione has been a vegan for over 40 years. I disagreed with the woman in this video that antinatalists living in society are hypocritical because she had unreasonable standards. In fact, she made more of a case for antinatalism because it's another form of suffering to breed kids to make them too dependent on this man-made system. Also, a big problem is the man-made system. Example, rich people and corporations hoarding much of the resources and land which forces masses of people to have to be a part of the system of capitalism to work to buy back part of those resources for survival. In some places, it's illegal to just live off the wilderness for free. Or that much of that wilderness may be privately owned. Or that people can't afford to move to the wilderness or know how to survive. Or that the land is arid. Or that some people are disabled and can't survive alone. Also, it's parents who forcibly bred their kids and should be responsible for helping them even into adulthood. But some parents even toss their kids out at a vulnerable age of 18 and leave them in poverty. Antinatalists are just about harm and birth reduction as much as possible. Antinatalists know that people will keep breeding. Antinatalists still care to tend people who exist now. So why can't antinatalists receive back the care they give out too?
This is clearly a case of cognitive dissonance. You want to stop procreation and you still want procreated to exist. These two thoughts do contradict eachother.
I dont think this is a classic tu quoque argument. A tu quoque fallacy involves dismissing someone’s position by accusing them of hypocrisy without addressing the actual argument. Here, the critique against antinatalists isn’t that they’re wrong because they are hypocritical. Rather, the argument claims that antinatalists’ position is internally inconsistent as long as they benefit from a society maintained by reproduction. However, this criticism still seems flawed. Antinatalism is a philosophical stance against the ethics of creating new lives, not an obligation to withdraw entirely from society. Antinatalists, like everyone else, didn’t choose to be born into a society and are therefore not logically bound to reject all social structures simply because they question the ethics of procreation. So, while this argument raises a question of perceived consistency, it doesn’t invalidate antinatalism itself, nor does it follow the tu quoque structure.
@@joepvans5035 This still doesn't explain why antinatalists keep living in and relying on a procreating society. Antinatalists clearly do not want a procreating society to exist, so they also shouldn't rely on it. This is the main reason why antinatalists should start living in the wild outside of society when they don't want to be hypocrites.
@@TheFettuck That’s not true at all many wild dogs and wolves hunt in packs, other great apes form societies just like we do, birds fly in flocks, schools of fish, even cats which you can argue are some of the most independent animals form social groups, and cows, buffalos, horses, and deer form herds naturally.
@@TheFettuck And all living things will die and go extinct no matter what according to nature, if you think procreation will stop extinction from happening go ask the dinosaurs (excluding birds) how that turned out. And if the only reason life exists is to procreate why are some people and animals born infertile ?
By her logic (or lack thereof) then she also would have to renounce living in society and start looking for a spot near a river. If she wants to live in a world not plagued by constant natural disasters, (which is a fair assumption to make) then show ought not to contribute to the degradation and destruction of said world, which means she should never upload a single video ever again as this uses electricity and it is harmful to the planet, she would never have to skip leg day ever in her life again as she shouldn't use any form of transportation. You get the point. Moreover, it simply doesn't follow that because you are against procreation that you must not interact with a procreated human. AN only concerns itself with bringing/creating a life where there was none, however it doesn't say anything regarding how we should react once the life is brought to this world.
All I'm saying is: *try* and bail out of society into the woods without paying your taxes or adhering to your locality's government mandated zoning and property laws. Go hunting or fishing without your state issued, seasonal license, and come let me know how that works out in the long run.
Excuses, excuses and even more excuses! Try to continue a society without any procreated humans, and come let me know how that works out in the long run.
I don't agree at all. Use machines and tech to help people, instead of humans, be it the last generation or existing people. We do know new humans will have to die as well right? Machines however, don't.
@@TheFettuck How pathetic u liked your own comment. Get that person struggling and working at McDonalds to learn tech and there u got yourself another person to build machines and write codes. You are that broken record ass whos here to use people. Realise they have to die and u will have more respect for them as oppose to procreating more people to work and struggle at mcdonalds. Get lost
@@TheFettuck Ofc popped out by selfish ignorant assholes like yourself, who love to use people without ever even considering that they are actually human beings with feelings and wants and needs Btw why are you always here eh? Because u want people to respect you maybe? for having s-x and popping out someone else in this game to be used by yourself? Perhaps? Because u never done anything significant or meaningful in your entire life to help the others you want the status quo to continue? Absolute bs points u always make over and over. Me just one person, in a few months, will replace hundreds of jobs just using existing tech, let alone new tech, u like to ask where humans can be here, guess what, next year I will move onto a new project. Me, no more "procreated humans" needed, just me, one person, and I will continue on helping more people with some other projects. You go on continue with your useless meaningless status quo of using people, we will gladly move on without you
@@birdieculture-2 Most antinatalists do ironically still use suffering people for their own benefits. I'm here to show the hypocrisy of antinatalists when they continue to rely on the results of procreation.
She's the absolute sweetest, problem is she had a kid before becoming an AN, she has to come up with ideas to justify it now. I respect her frankly nearly as much as Danny Shine. You just can't help it sometimes, when certain ideas just weren't promoted to you before you do certain things.
I thought this will be interesting, but she totally missed the point right from the beginning. But it proves that people can arrive at a right place in wrong way.
Yeah. Antinatalsits are going to destroy our pension system, infrastructure. We need make a law that all women should have no less than 2.0 kids. Or extreme taxes.
![LAVROV's interview with Tucker CARLSON 😁 [Parody]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/mbMemqc-QEk/mqdefault.jpg)
What did you think of her arguments? 🪵
Brilliant! I did finally convince somebody to admit to their own hypocrisy.
It never seem to work with vegans. Vegans are hypocrites when they continue to support crop deaths.
She hates us for existing and for using the things that others have created because they exist, does she not realize that if nobody reproduces, those things are no longer necessary? the last generation of humans would be cared for by machines, I don't see the problem, deep down she wishes us the worst because she doesn't have a valid argument against anti-natalism.
We are subjects to the state, which isn't legitimate, since it was created against the will of the ruled and is upheld by the monopoly on violence and brainwash. That means that we don't have any obligations to it. It's just there so that the "elite" can treat us like cattle. Lysander Spooner writes about this in No Treason and Natural Law. I think that if you are an antinatalist, you should also be an anticapitalist and individual anarchist.
moot, AI is here
Absurd.
So basically that women is asking antinatalist to help natalist in continuation of Ponzi scheme of suffering
No, the complete opposite! Antinatalists should live alone in the wild.
Antinatalists are hypocrites when they continue to rely on a natalist society.
And she is a breeder too, funny thing is she made that entire video in response to my comment after I called her a massive hypocrite for being a breeder and making AN videos, its like a p3do SA'ing someone then after saying they feel bad and preaching to others to not SA kids, Nobody would take them serious and would still hold them accountable for their crimes and its the same for breeders wanting to preach all high and mighty after breeding. Sure they can agree with the philosophy and not make more kids but they should never ever make videos on the subject as new people and natalist would rightly call her a hypocrite and it would de value our points.
@@ruehl3853that's like saying no one who's ever eaten eggs is allowed to talk about veganism. People ought to be encouraged to change their minds, not be silenced for coming to the correct conclusion.
@@moveleathe difference is eggs don’t have any feelings or emotions, they aren’t even alive yet in the yoke stage so what are you talking about, she had a kid and caused untold amounts of suffering, not even the same
@ruehl3853 the chickens forced to lay eggs en masse then who get slaughtered en mass certainly suffer.
Asking for only gold star antinatalists is a great way to never convert anyone who's ever procreated. Personally, i think it's better to get more people on the side of doing less harm. If people with kids aren't allowed to speak, then fewer people will be around to convince others to become antinatalists. Also there will be less insight into what tactics work to convince people.
Don't punish the behaviour you want to see. Calling someone a hypocrite for changing their mind to the morally better position, and going on to spread that message, says that they can't change for the better. Also it's inaccurate. Preaching antinatalism while trying to get pregnant, that's hypocrisy. Being convinced that you've done harm and changing your mind and actions to do no more of that harm and trying to get others to also change for the better is called growing as a person.
We live in slave farm where human farmers owns human live stocks.
Why do you continue to live in a slave farm when you don't agree with slave farms?
It doesn't matter. Death means the end of suffering. This means it was illusory in the first place. If life is suboptimal and if non existence is the ideal then suffering can't really hurt you because in death, it will be as though it never really happened at all. You're all like the chick who gets mad at her boyfriend when she wakes up coz he cheated on her in a dream lol.
@@danielstockley5631 here's the issue, first of you failed to assess the situation correctly, while yes when you die suffering doesn't matter but before that it obviously does, then again it's all negotiating horrors to make yourself feel better, until you are the one on the receiving end and all of a sudden the entire narrative changes only downplaying it when you aren't the victim, it's one of the many reasons why this world is a piece of shit the massive lack of empathy and the rationalization of horrors it's what keeps all of the man made horrors maintained.
I would live in the forest if it were allowed. A few years ago a man was thrown out of a cave where he had been living for over 20 years, with the excuse that he was an environmental risk. He lived with the bare minimum, collecting and growing some food, and had only a few pots, clothes and bottles. Meanwhile, people living in cities are flushing down the toilet with drinking water.
Even if you are living on a farm that "belongs" to your family and produce everything you need to eat yourself, the state will impose its taxes and laws on you, like the mafia it is.
No you wouldn't. You wouldn't last 2 hours without an internet connection lol.
@@danielstockley5631 You're wrong, I was born into a poor family and spent years living in a house without running water or electricity. When I was a child my room didn't even have a window, I would put a board in the hole in the wall to close it at night. I'm more than used to living without the comforts of modern society. I'm not living in the countryside because I don't have the money to buy land and pay all the absurd taxes the government charges, that's why my house is on my parents' land in the city (which I helped to buy). And as I said, if I try to live in any forested area and am discovered I will certainly be evicted by the government.
If I bred, you can call me a hypocrite.
She fell for a softer form of 'why don't you unalive yourself'.
Yup, antinatalism is about refraining from procreation, so as long as the antinatalist doesn't reproduce, there is no cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy there.
Which is actually an argument that shows you're a hypocrite. Life = suffering. No life=no suffering. If I had a worldview that revolved around avoiding suffering to the point not creating more life, the path to end the suffering is right in front of you. All the excuses for not doing the deed amount to "well that causes more suffering for the people I leave behind, it's hard, I don't want to go through the extra suffering, etc." It's cope.
@juniper-ug3hs You've made my point. If I had a worldview that revolved around avoiding suffering by not creating more sufferers, I'd avoid creating more sufferers. My worldview does not revolve around removing all sufferers once they're alive, against their will. Thus, no hypocrisy.
@antinatalope and you can avoid future suffering by a self exit. Your worldview is inconsistent and thus hypocritical. Most people who exist are mentally resilient and are quite happy to keep existing. Therefore, the odds of playing "Russian roulette" with someone's life by creating them are quite low. If they turn out to be genetic mutants, high in neuroticism, and unable to survive under darwinian conditions, they are free to purchase a pod from Sweden or take some pills. Your whole philosophy boils down to " I'm cold, so everyone else has to wear sweaters."
@antinatalope your worldview is based on suffering. Yet you refuse to end your suffering. You're a coward and a hypocrite. I think that ANs are the epitome of crabs in the bucket. Life is hard for you. Everything is nihilistic. Therefore, those of us who enjoy life, find purpose and meaning in family, and are generally mentally healthy. If you don't like the game, don't play. Don't try to act like you're morally superior to the rest of us who don't want to shout our misery at the sky and live lives full of misery and anxiety.
She claims that because we are part of society (something we are forced into for survival) we are in not position to critique procreation. It reminds me of Jordan Peterson whose Rule #6 is "set your house in perfect order before you criticize the world." He acts to suppress his followers' critical thinking and appoints himself supreme adjudicator of reality.
Yep, it's also funny to hear him preach about cleaning your room, when his office is a mess
She didn't claim it originally, another person did, and guess what, that broken record asshole is here, rn, in this comment section, making zero sense again and again
Antinatalists shouldn't be a part of a procreating society!
It doesn't make any sense to rely on something (procreation) you don't want!
Show me the woods I can go live in permanently and legally in Britain, where I can build my own shelter, hunt or grow my own food, cut my own firewood, or peat, and I'm right there. I didn't know people went to work to make tablets and grow food out of kindness. I always thought they did it because they have no choice or they want more money. How naive of me.
Why Britain? Why not live in another country/continent?
I was going to say the same thing. People don't do these things cause they want to be nice so someone can go watch RUclips. A job is just a job
@@emitsienim People don't do these things because it simply isn't convenient!
Why is your own convenience more important than the lives and suffering of other humans?
Yeah I said the same thing on her video @@emitsienim
@@DaughterOfWater9278what is her video called?
Ex-antinatalist...? That's absolutely insane.
Americans have a tendency to try on ideologies like shoes instead of thinking about their core values and reasoning their way towards an ideology. Sadly. I kind of believe she might be telling the truth.
it just means she never was an antinatalist in the first place there is no ex antinatalism you either are one or you aren't
@@ArgonianSundae it's shows that she was never understood antinatalism and was not serious about it.
@@adelMN2 lol are you serious ex-antinatalism just means she changed her mind. Meaning she is no longer one. How is that inconceivable to you. What do you think antinatalism is the one philosophy in the world that is completely unassailable, it has no flaws, couldn't possibly be wrong??? People get things wrong all the time. People change their mind all the time. I used to be an anarchist now I am no longer. See...its easy
Kind of a weird argument against antinatalism. Like yes we require other people to exist, hell maybe that is an argument against life in itself, a compelled cooperation of sorts.
How do antinatalists require other people when other people aren't born anymore?
It only feels compelled because we have to spend most of our waking life selling our time to make other people rich, all in exchange for an ever-deteriorating quality of life. I will never have children because subjecting a human to this environment is cruel and unusual punishment, but I hope that people start getting their shit together and working to make society better for the people who are stuck here either way.
"Hell maybe that is an argument against life in itself, a compelled cooperation of sorts"
And yet here you all are, still yapping. Remember kids, down the road. Not across the street!
@@prodigal_southerner Why are you still subjecting yourself to the cruel environment of a procreating society?
@@danielstockley5631 lmao love that you spread your comments through here like seeds and each one is dumber than the last, keep yapping monkey it gives me a good laugh in the morning
I think there are very few countries where someone can just be a squatter on uninhabited land and build a shelter or house. If someone has to purchase land, then they will have to sell their labor for many years to save up the money. Also, most people don't have the skills needed to feed themselves through hunting/gathering/farming. It's just an uphill battle to do what this woman is suggesting; you would have to be highly motivated and lucky to pull it off.
It was the horrors of wage slavery gone-bad in my own life that convinced me of the virtues of antinatalism.
Antinatalists should be highly motivated to do things for themselves, because they don't want other procreated humans to exist. Most people will unfortunately only follow their own philosophy until it becomes inconvenient.
Unless medically aided suicide is freely available to any age or social status I'd say her point is moot. One of the reasons why I exercise and try to stay healthy is recognizing that to be reliant on elderly care would be expensive not guaranteed(just look at the cases of elderly people being abused in retirement homes). Besides which government in the world would want their livestock to be fully independent from their services or exploitation?
Funny thing is she made that entire video in response to my comment after I called her a massive hypocrite for being a breeder and making AN videos, its like a p3do SA'ing some kid then after saying they feel bad and preaching to others to not SA kids, nobody would take them serious and if they used lawrence logic of "oh i was just operating on autopilot" which may be true since they cant choose their attractions, people would still hold them accountable for their crimes and its the same for breeders wanting to preach all high and mighty after breeding. Sure they can agree with the philosophy and not make more kids but they should never ever make videos on the subject as new people and natalist would rightly call her a hypocrite and it would de value our points.
There is a youtuber called A Poetry Channel, who went extremely triggered, though she posted a text and not a video, after I pointed out that she reads Schopenhauer, Pessoa, Rilke and other pessimistic philosophers and poets while in fact being an optimist. She really played the victim card and in principle said that I was a frustrated male - she's not the skinniest so to speak - not accepting women standing on their own or some total BS like that just for exposing her.
She actually made that entire video in response of me calling her a hypocrite for relying on a procreating society.
Those things have nothing to do with antinatalism. Antinatalism isn't every person for themselves. Antinatalism at the very base is just that it's good to not procreate.
I guess this falls back on the old idea that it's selfish to not have children. Which in itself is a weird statement, as it implies that it is preferable to not have children but that you should sacrifice yourself and have children anyway.
There's nothing wrong with being an ex-antinatalist or ex- anything. We can all change opinions.
It's unfair to say that somebody wasn't what they said they were. But in this case I would argue that she was uninformed about what antinatalism is. An antinatalist appreciate family and friends as much as anyone. Their children, too, if they have any. Antinatalists are like people in general. Meaning we aren't always consistent in actions. A vegan may eat meat on occasions. It doesn't change their values, philosophy, worldview or whatever. It just means they are people.
Why is it bad to procreate? Because it creates suffering humans? Why do you not want humans to suffer?
Why do you continue to rely on suffering humans when you don't want human suffering to exist?
Natalist logic is very stupid. It’s not even logic.
Antinatalists are delusional people living in a natalist society.
says an antinatalist
It does not matter. Theyein long run anyway
Fuxk this Horrible World. I’m not bringing Innocent Souls into this Nightmare world.
Same. Subjecting innocent souls to a life of wage slavery/servitude for elite capitalists and possibly dealing with perpetual poverty/struggle is not right. Life is just bills and taxes.
Why are you still relying on the innocent souls living in this nightmare world?
@@K-zw1ei well you seem to enjoy living in it considering you are still here, sounds slightly hypocritical if you ask me
Its not about ending a life but dont starting one do better@@radscorpion8
Cause IT is too late we were born
It's an unfortunate reality that those brought into the world must now work and endure suffering just to survive. However, this isn't done out of charity-those of us who exist now contribute by paying taxes and for the services we use. Once born, we're driven by our natural instincts to keep surviving, and that in itself is part of the burden of existence.
Also, it's not just antinatalists; many natalists benefit from the work we do. Ultimately, we're all dependent on each other in some way, simply because we're already here.
The main point is, it would have been better if life-on this planet or beyond-had never existed, sparing all beings from the inevitable suffering that comes with it.
Antinatalism is pointless when we are all dependent on the existence of procreated humans.
If we're going by her "logic", yes - we benefit from offspring being wage slaves. However, we also suffer when offspring perform harmful acts, so it's more than a mute point.
This is exactly why antinatalists should live alone in the wild without any offspring.
Lmao, I don't think it's reasonable to procreate and put your offspring in a position of dependence.
You're still leeching off natalist society and enjoying life. You're a scummy hypocrite and nothing will change that.
I didnt even fall for that argument as a child myself. I truely commend your ability to engage with these people and not just automatically write them off as idiots
I did convince the woman in the video to admit to her own hypocrisy.
Lawrence ironically has never replied to me with any comments. I don't know why. Probably because he is scared.
He obviously doesn't want to lose the conveniences and benefits of living in and relying on a procreating society.
Yeah, that's truly commendable.
Would my refusal to take advantage of the procreational activities of others cause them not to procreate?
I doubt it.
If it did, then a case could be made that, though not engaging in procreation myself, I'm nevertheless supporting the activity, even though indirectly.
But I don't believe that case can reasonably be made.
She says that one can't indentify themself an antinatalist cause they are living in a society which is supported and is able to exist by procreated people and procreating people. Let's asume that somehow the thesis that by living in the world that is built that way - you inherently do an immoral act that goes agains your antinatalist beliefs.
But it doesn't make you non antinatalist.For example i think that moral discussion surrounding veganism is right, but i am not a vegan mysepf, so eat meat, but i acknowledge that i do an immoral act finacially supporting the slaughterhouses and what not.
So even if a person is getting a baby, it still doesn't inherently makes them a hypocrite nor sweeps them out of antinatalists if they acknowledge the terrible act they have commited.
Hypocrites will most of time say that they aren't a hypocrite. Cognitive dissonance is very powerfull!
Actions matter more than words. Especially if there are victims involved, like animals, livestock, or babies forcibly bred into a world of suffering. So it is hypocrisy.
Just words is called lip service.
If you were physically harmed would you just want your attacker to just have words or to physically stop it?
But if nonvegans are making efforts towards veganism as best as they can then that's good even if they struggle. Cause I know it's not easy. Though being a vegan is possible.
Gary Francione has been a vegan for over 40 years.
I disagreed with the woman in this video that antinatalists living in society are hypocritical because she had unreasonable standards.
In fact, she made more of a case for antinatalism because it's another form of suffering to breed kids to make them too dependent on this man-made system.
Also, a big problem is the man-made system.
Example, rich people and corporations hoarding much of the resources and land which forces masses of people to have to be a part of the system of capitalism to work to buy back part of those resources for survival.
In some places, it's illegal to just live off the wilderness for free. Or that much of that wilderness may be privately owned. Or that people can't afford to move to the wilderness or know how to survive.
Or that the land is arid. Or that some people are disabled and can't survive alone.
Also, it's parents who forcibly bred their kids and should be responsible for helping them even into adulthood.
But some parents even toss their kids out at a vulnerable age of 18 and leave them in poverty.
Antinatalists are just about harm and birth reduction as much as possible. Antinatalists know that people will keep breeding.
Antinatalists still care to tend people who exist now.
So why can't antinatalists receive back the care they give out too?
@@user-gu9yq5sj7c Antinatalism is pointless when people will keep breeding!
Thanks!
Thanks for the support legend!
This kind of argumentation is called "tu quoque" (you too) and is a type of ad hominem.
This is clearly a case of cognitive dissonance.
You want to stop procreation and you still want procreated to exist. These two thoughts do contradict eachother.
I dont think this is a classic tu quoque argument. A tu quoque fallacy involves dismissing someone’s position by accusing them of hypocrisy without addressing the actual argument. Here, the critique against antinatalists isn’t that they’re wrong because they are hypocritical. Rather, the argument claims that antinatalists’ position is internally inconsistent as long as they benefit from a society maintained by reproduction.
However, this criticism still seems flawed. Antinatalism is a philosophical stance against the ethics of creating new lives, not an obligation to withdraw entirely from society. Antinatalists, like everyone else, didn’t choose to be born into a society and are therefore not logically bound to reject all social structures simply because they question the ethics of procreation. So, while this argument raises a question of perceived consistency, it doesn’t invalidate antinatalism itself, nor does it follow the tu quoque structure.
@@joepvans5035 This still doesn't explain why antinatalists keep living in and relying on a procreating society. Antinatalists clearly do not want a procreating society to exist, so they also shouldn't rely on it. This is the main reason why antinatalists should start living in the wild outside of society when they don't want to be hypocrites.
It's a weird argument, why do I HAVE to rely on others to begin with? Because I was born.
That's just an excuse! Many wild animals do start relying on themselves when they are old enough.
@@TheFettuck That’s not true at all many wild dogs and wolves hunt in packs, other great apes form societies just like we do, birds fly in flocks, schools of fish, even cats which you can argue are some of the most independent animals form social groups, and cows, buffalos, horses, and deer form herds naturally.
@@lonergettingstronger2537 Procreating groups shouldn't exist according to antinatalism!
@@TheFettuck And all living things will die and go extinct no matter what according to nature, if you think procreation will stop extinction from happening go ask the dinosaurs (excluding birds) how that turned out. And if the only reason life exists is to procreate why are some people and animals born infertile ?
@@lonergettingstronger2537 It still doesn't make any sense for antinatalists to rely on the results of procreation.
By her logic (or lack thereof) then she also would have to renounce living in society and start looking for a spot near a river. If she wants to live in a world not plagued by constant natural disasters, (which is a fair assumption to make) then show ought not to contribute to the degradation and destruction of said world, which means she should never upload a single video ever again as this uses electricity and it is harmful to the planet, she would never have to skip leg day ever in her life again as she shouldn't use any form of transportation. You get the point. Moreover, it simply doesn't follow that because you are against procreation that you must not interact with a procreated human. AN only concerns itself with bringing/creating a life where there was none, however it doesn't say anything regarding how we should react once the life is brought to this world.
Antinatalism is pointless when it concerns itself about something that doesn't even exist.
All I'm saying is: *try* and bail out of society into the woods without paying your taxes or adhering to your locality's government mandated zoning and property laws. Go hunting or fishing without your state issued, seasonal license, and come let me know how that works out in the long run.
Excuses, excuses and even more excuses!
Try to continue a society without any procreated humans, and come let me know how that works out in the long run.
I mean would they throw you into prison even if you dodany have any belongings or ids?
1st 💪🏾 💪🏾 💪🏾
Ted Kaczynski, the trve anti-natalist.
I like that the picture you chose for the video is a man pooing in the woods LOL XD
It's a perfect depiction of a real antinatalist in their natural habitat.
Great video bro
Cheers!
🌼🌸🌼🌸🌼🌸🌼
I don't agree at all. Use machines and tech to help people, instead of humans, be it the last generation or existing people. We do know new humans will have to die as well right? Machines however, don't.
Machines aren't built by nothing! Procreated humans need to exist to build machines!
How do procreated humans exist without procreation?
@@TheFettuck How pathetic u liked your own comment. Get that person struggling and working at McDonalds to learn tech and there u got yourself another person to build machines and write codes. You are that broken record ass whos here to use people. Realise they have to die and u will have more respect for them as oppose to procreating more people to work and struggle at mcdonalds. Get lost
@@birdieculture-2 This doesn't explain how procreated humans exist without procreation.
@@TheFettuck Ofc popped out by selfish ignorant assholes like yourself, who love to use people without ever even considering that they are actually human beings with feelings and wants and needs
Btw why are you always here eh? Because u want people to respect you maybe? for having s-x and popping out someone else in this game to be used by yourself? Perhaps? Because u never done anything significant or meaningful in your entire life to help the others you want the status quo to continue?
Absolute bs points u always make over and over. Me just one person, in a few months, will replace hundreds of jobs just using existing tech, let alone new tech, u like to ask where humans can be here, guess what, next year I will move onto a new project. Me, no more "procreated humans" needed, just me, one person, and I will continue on helping more people with some other projects.
You go on continue with your useless meaningless status quo of using people, we will gladly move on without you
@@birdieculture-2 Most antinatalists do ironically still use suffering people for their own benefits.
I'm here to show the hypocrisy of antinatalists when they continue to rely on the results of procreation.
Where do you, Lawrence, get your morality from? Are morals objective or subjective?
She (Zombie Girl) deleted this video the very next day, so shouldn't we consider it just a slip up?
She's the absolute sweetest, problem is she had a kid before becoming an AN, she has to come up with ideas to justify it now. I respect her frankly nearly as much as Danny Shine. You just can't help it sometimes, when certain ideas just weren't promoted to you before you do certain things.
I don't think anyone is upset with her for making the video. It can be confusing sometimes when the rest of the world is telling you to have kids.
@@birdieculture-2 what's the channels name
Do you plan on interviewing Goatis any time soon? He’s the biggest pro lifer I know of, would definitely be an interesting interview
Never heard of him! Email me some of his content I’ll take a look! lawrenceant@protonmail.com
She should read more Caraco and stop telling stupidities.
I thought this will be interesting, but she totally missed the point right from the beginning. But it proves that people can arrive at a right place in wrong way.
Hello
❌🤱🏽❌🤱🏽❌🤱🏽❌🤱🏽❌
Yeah. Antinatalsits are going to destroy our pension system, infrastructure. We need make a law that all women should have no less than 2.0 kids. Or extreme taxes.
Bro's only boosting him in athe algorithm 😂
My non-kids don't need pensions and infrastructure. I'm not going to have kids just so they boost your life, ya selfish git.
It is almost like we are brought into this world through some kind of pyramid scheme or something... hmmm....
You can breed as much as you want just keep your worthless opionions to yourself !
@@Always1happy you can breeed all you want my friend , just keep your dumb opinions and brəəding propaganda to yourself .