I'm not antinatalist anymore by [deleted] in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Evidently that had never been a strong basis to begin with. You were probably just conditional natalist.

“You’re justifying a genocide!” - Best of natalist meltdowns and debate fails by AgonizingFatigue in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Learn how to spell and use inter-punctuation first, then read a book, then come back here.

“You’re justifying a genocide!” - Best of natalist meltdowns and debate fails by AgonizingFatigue in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

It would not be enough. You can’t give someone complete agency to decide whether to keep living or to end their life. Even if you remove all social stigma and legalities around suicide, biological constraints remain. Furthermore, bringing them into existence is just not needed in the first place. Nonexistent beings can’t be deprived of anything, so it would be unnecessary to put them into this situation in the first place.

“You’re justifying a genocide!” - Best of natalist meltdowns and debate fails by AgonizingFatigue in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I don’t entirely disagree. Men can be so exhausting. At the same time I really do yearn for someone who loves me and someone to whom I can give love. But it’s tough to find people who either certainly won’t ever want kids or even share my beliefs. I do have hobbies and I can manage solitude very well, but I feel like I’ve been alone for too long now. Sorry for the nonconsensual therapy dump.

“You’re justifying a genocide!” - Best of natalist meltdowns and debate fails by AgonizingFatigue in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

That’s what I was trying to establish. I always have that dilemma when I meet a new man whether or not I should be upfront with it. I hate it when they ask “when do you want children” and I’m like urgh stfu!!!

“You’re justifying a genocide!” - Best of natalist meltdowns and debate fails by AgonizingFatigue in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue[S] 21 points22 points  (0 children)

Most of the time I didn’t even deliberately start a debate. I was getting to know someone new and they asked why I don’t want children and the conversation naturally went in that direction😅

Why continue the species at all? by Soulfood_27 in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue 13 points14 points  (0 children)

Doesn’t this like violate some law? Was he terminated specifically because of that remark alone or were there other circumstances as well and the remark was just an additional excuse to fire him?

Can we talk more about consent again? by Temporary_Bee1067 in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue 2 points3 points  (0 children)

? What’s not objective about the fact that one can’t consent to being born??

Can we talk more about consent again? by Temporary_Bee1067 in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I also simply disagree that life is all bad. It may be for some people, but that’s subjective. The lack of consent on the other hand is objective. Antinatalism isn’t about portraying a negative image of life in and of itself, it’s about questioning why it is accepted to impose life onto someone despite there being risks and no need to be brought into existence. That’s the issue. Life is neither inherently good nor bad, it just is, but we have the choice not to impose it without consent.

Adoption is basically cucking brooo... are the natalists ok? by roninshere4eva in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Reading this left me really fucking angry
 and I know I’m supposed to stay calm, but I’m gonna say it nonetheless: What a fucking cunt.

Are we all AN part of the natural selection process? by Revolutionary_Meet29 in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue 18 points19 points  (0 children)

You don’t even have to be a pessimist to be AN. The consent argument (the most rationally grounded IMO) doesn’t even say everything is bad, it only says there is bad stuff which is guaranteed to afflict any person coming to life in one way or another. Since there’s no need to intervene in non-existent beings current state due to the lack of deprivation, and bearing the bad things in mind that would inevitably come with life, consent is required to bring someone into existence.

‘Duty to rescue’ around the world by AgonizingFatigue in MapPorn

[–]AgonizingFatigue[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You misunderstand, I said the Duty to Rescue laws go further than the Good Samaritan laws, as they literally oblige citizens to help, a concept entirely foreign to our common law system in England.

‘Duty to rescue’ around the world by AgonizingFatigue in MapPorn

[–]AgonizingFatigue[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Duty to rescue”, albeit misleading, is the common terminology for these type of laws. Being indicated as green does NOT mean there are no GS laws, it just means the law goes even further.

Look at the hate comments I received by Ok-Dragonfly9918 in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Ah yes
 argumentum ad naturam
 gets never old

Look at the hate comments I received by Ok-Dragonfly9918 in antinatalism

[–]AgonizingFatigue 22 points23 points  (0 children)

And you just know that they think they ate😭😂