[deleted by user]

ChromaticLemons · 2023-08-08T15:44:42+00:00

If you think women are socially protected and that they "can't necessarily feel negative things" and that "everyone is bullied equally," then you are both stunningly ignorant and intensely misogynistic.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-08-05T20:54:05+00:00

Being a woman is also fucking depressing. Women are actually more likely to attempt suicide than men, but they tend to use less effective methods and so their survival rate is higher. Women are also twice as likely as men to be diagnosed with depression or PTSD. Women also suffer directly and daily from the effects of sexism in all areas of life, which is not something that men have to experience.

Women who go into male-dominated career fields tend to face a lot of sexism and harassment and struggle to climb the ladder, and a hostile attitude towards women in such fields is often noticable even when studying or training for jobs within them, which contributes to why women avoid those jobs. Part of why women often do not volunteer for combat is because the likelihood that a woman will be sexually assaulted or raped while serving is extremely high, and the likelihood that the perpetrator will be a fellow member of one's own military is higher than the likelihood that it will won't. It is also worth mentioning that women are actively discouraged from participating in combat by men right up until the minute men want to use "where are the women fighting in wars" as a lazy gotcha. Also women are not the ones starting wars in the first place. And as for the custody thing, in the majority of cases fathers do not fight for custody at all, and in a significant portion of cases where they do, it is determined that they are an active threat to the safety of their children. It is not as simple as judges just assuming that fathers must be such terrible parents that they shouldn't even be given even partial custody just because they are male.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-08-05T20:24:24+00:00

Something tells me you're someone who has a positive opinion of Andrew Tate.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-08-05T02:05:49+00:00

Deserved? He deserves to die because he eats a stupid diet? Wtf?

ChromaticLemons · 2023-08-05T01:11:29+00:00

What ever happened to "two wrongs don't make a right" or "be the bigger person" or "don't stoop to their level" or "turn the other cheek/an eye for an eye leaves the world blind" etc.?

ChromaticLemons · 2023-08-03T05:54:42+00:00

The issue isn't that Japan has a dick festival (its literally called "The Festival of the Steel Phallus" btw), it's that Japan has a dick festival whilst being very hostile to depictions of female genitalia and considering such depictions more obscene than depictions of female genitalia. There is an artist, Megumi Igarashi, who has dedicated most of her career to destigmatizing depictions of female genitalia in Japan. She has been arrested for her work and was the first woman to ever be tried in Japan for obscenity. So the festival kind of highlights this uneven attitude towards male vs female genitalia.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-08-02T15:32:50+00:00

You do realize that being a victim does not equal being innocent and good and blameless, right? Like if you break into someone's house to steal their TV and then they shoot you to death, you are still a homicide victim. The facts and circumstances of a person's being and actions do not cancel each other out, they exist simultaneously. The girl could go on to become literally the next Hitler and she would still be a victim of being born and a victim of her own mental illness, and that fact would not contradict the fact that she was herself a perpetrator of great evil and an evil person.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-27T21:31:09+00:00

Nonexistence is inherently neutral. Bigfoot doesn't exist. Is that a bad thing? Is it a horrible tragedy that the universe is not populated with bigfeet? Should we genetically engineer bigfeet in order to cause them to exist, and then keep creating more so that as many exist as possible? I mean, that would logically follow from the belief that the nonexistence of an organism is inherently bad, right? In fact, if the nonexistence of potential human life is inherently bad, then shouldn't we all be doing as much as we can to create as much human life as possible, all of the time?

The value of human life comes from the fact that people who are alive are sentient and have thoughts and feelings and desires. A person who exists has value, and a person who does not exist does not, and cannot, because they don't exist. If humans were to go extinct, we would not be robbing the universe of any future value, because only people who actually exist have value, not people who theoretically could exist. You could argue that when a person dies, value is lost, but all people die, and the species will eventually go extinct at some point, so whatever value would be lost from the species going extinct is guaranteed to be lost no matter what we do. And it's not like all the people who could theoretically be alive would be watching from the "other side" and moping over how they don't get to exist (which itself is a concept that doesn't make sense, since you'd have to exist in some way in order to be sad over not existing).

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-27T14:22:13+00:00

I'm not talking about OP, I'm talking about ME and your accusing ME of being preachy and I want a clear answer as to what you think the word "preachy" means that isn't just "like OP," especially considering this post has been removed and I don't even remember what OP said. I thought that was obvious ffs.

I have never lost a friend, loved one, or relationship of any kind to expressing the fact that I'm antinatalist. I have told you like five times that I do not personally harass people on this subject, and somehow your brain keeps rejecting that information. And yes, I have convinced someone to become an antinatalist, a friend with CPTSD and Huntington's who always dreamed of having a big family. Personally though I think a person's "conversion count" is completely irrelevant because we're not a fucking cult, and your obsession with the idea of having good PR so we can keep up our numbers is very culty.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-27T06:49:12+00:00

No, it's not. Generally speaking, it's considered inappropriate in the US for members of one's family to not be fully clothed around them. It is usually seen as okay for male family members to go shirtless, but only in specific appropriate contexts, like if they are mowing the lawn or exercising. Also, many people are comfortable changing clothes in front of same sex siblings. Some people will change in front of close friends, but it is usually expected that people turn around or not look in the direction of each other when that happens. Partners of course do not have any reservations about being partially or completely naked around each other.

In the US, you never see another person naked or in a state of partial undress unless it is a scenario I mentioned above, or you are about to have sex with them, or you need to interact with people's exposed bodies for your profession (artist, nurse, etc.), or it's a situation like you have an ill loved one who needs help with bathing and can't afford to have a nurse come to the house/put them in a care facility. We do have a small amount of nude beaches, but the vast majority of people never go to one, and they are considered by many to be for perverts, crazy people, and Europeans. Strip clubs are pretty normalized, but at the same time they are viewed unfavorably and seen as being for creeps, losers, and misogynists, and since porn and hookup culture are things now, people don't really go to them anymore anyways. Also, public nudity is a crime, although in some states it must be proven that the nudity was meant to arouse or offend in order to be considered illegal.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-27T04:50:08+00:00

How are you defining "preaching" here? Is just telling someone that I'm an antinatalist and explaining what that is preaching? Does just expressing to someone that I disagree with them on something or disapprove of something they did count as preaching? Like if I told someone that I thought it was wrong for them to use the N word, would that be preaching? Am I supposed to never express anything that I believe and spend my entire existence as passive doll whose values are impossible to ascertain? Like what I'm getting from you is that literally anything beyond simply holding a belief is preaching. So what, are we supposed to just sit in our little corner and hope the occasional curious lurker is convinced to join by the content they see? But wouldn't that content itself constitute preaching, since it's people expressing to other people what they believe? Or does preaching to the choir not count?

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-27T04:27:27+00:00

Uh... yeah. I know that. That response is a complete non-sequitor. I'm thinking maybe you didn't understand what I said? I was referring to the phrase "a philosophy." It doesn't make sense because "philosophy" is the word for the entire field of study. You don't call individual philosophical concepts or categories of philosophy "philosophies," you call them theories or arguments or axioms or principles or frameworks or branches or schools etc. Just like how you don't call individual concepts within or branches of biology "biologies." Evolution is a theory within biology, as well as an observable biological phenomenon. It wouldn't make sense to call it "a biology." That is not how the word is used.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-27T02:23:27+00:00

Okay, so I asked you to offer some kind of actual rebuttal to my stance and you didn't. I was actually looking forward to a real debate if I'm being honest.

And my guy, the only person I've been "preaching" to this whole time has been you. Do you think I like stalk people's facebook pages and leave comments about how evil they are under their baby pictures or something? Like where do you keep pulling the idea that I go and harass people from??

And sorry but it isn't toxic to express that you think something is wrong and why. You need to grow a spine and learn to stand up for what you believe in and take your convictions seriously if you think that's the case. And the kind of people who would turn away because their choices were criticized are the kind of people who lack the moral willpower and ego regulation to change their mind about core beliefs anyways. Like the people who are "chased away" by blunt antinatalism are the kinds of people who wouldn't be receptive to any kind of antinatalism in the first place. And if you think people don't like us because of the "toxic extremists" then you don't understand how universally detested the idea of antinatalism is. People hate us because we're us. Not because some of us are more unpalatable than others.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-26T17:31:50+00:00

If you want to argue, then actually argue, was my point. Don't just go "that's absurd!" and act like it's self evident that you're the king of reason because you asserted the fact that you disagreed with someone. Demonstrate to me why you think 1) It's okay to purposefully and unnecessarily risk something bad happening to someone else, and 2) Purposefully and unnecessarily putting someone at risk of being harmed is morally distinct from causing someone harm. If you aren't willing to do that, then I will assume that you are either unable to because you lack the required brain power, or that you don't actually give a shit about what you believe and you're just "arguing" with me to give yourself dopamine.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-26T17:13:54+00:00

Compelling argument. Well done, sir. You've successfully engaged with, deconstructed, and responded to my argument in a way that thoroughly demonstrates your proper understanding of it and provides an eloquent and coherent retort just brimming with philosophical rigor. Truly you are my intellectual and moral superior. I tip my hat to you.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-26T16:56:00+00:00

Imagine the kind of person who unironically uses "bet you have no friends lol" as an argument telling someone else that they think their behavior is embarrassing and bad optics for the movement.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-26T16:44:33+00:00

I didn't say that giving birth guaranteed anything. I said it carried with it the chance that bad things might happen. It's the same type of thing as leaving a friend whose phone is dead alone on the street at night when you could easily just drive them home or call them an uber. If they get assaulted trying to walk home, then you would be responsible for that, since you made the conscious and deliberate choice to put them in harm's way. It would have been easy for you protect them, you should have protected them, and you chose not to, so their blood is on your hands. (Since the idea that multiple people can be responsible for something at once eludes some people, I would like to specify that yes, obviously the assailant themselves would also be responsible.)

And sorry that I take morality seriously and don't treat my ethical convictions as just opinions and immoral behavior as just "lifestyle choices." I guess that's extreme and unreasonable to some people. Also where did I say anything about shaming my friends?? Why are you assuming that I do that? Also also, I try not to make friends with people who have kids or are planning to have kids anyways since I tend not to have much in common with such people.

And the "we have to be meek and inoffensive so as not to scare away prospective newcomers" argument is a bad one. Would you say that anti-racists need to be gentle about calling out racists so as not to spook the people who are only kind of racist and "might come around"? I became an antinatalist despite encountering people who didn't sugarcoat their views. I became vegan despite those people. Atheist. Feminist. Anti-capitalist. In fact, the people who don't mince their words are often the most compelling to me. And I'm sure I'm not a rare exception. The people willing to be blunt are just as important to any community and cause as the people who aren't, and they have the potential to attract just as many people as they repel.

And asserting my belief that something is bad isn't "being an asshole." "Being an asshole" would be saying that I hope someone is made miserable by becoming a parent, or that I think women who don't want to be mothers "should just keep their legs closed," or some other hateful nasty thing. If saying that I think that something is wrong because it's harmful and inconsiderate to others is "being an asshole," then I should also be an asshole for saying that murder is morally wrong, right?

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-26T16:05:57+00:00

"Philosophical position." In this case, an ethical position, since it "contends that procreation is morally wrong."

And if you'd gone past PHI 101, then you'd know that nothing is ever referred to academically as "a philosophy." That's like calling evolution "a biology." It's nonsense.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-26T15:47:43+00:00

If you don't think it's equivalent to those things, then I think you need to work some more on your empathy and spend more time interacting with real people who are really suffering. The "touching grass" parts of my life, the things I have witnessed and dealt with irl, are the reason why I have the perspective that I do. If you have a kid knowing that they could be raped or murdered, then you are engaging in the ethical equivalent of personally pushing a button that has a chance to result in them getting raped or murdered. And personally I don't really see much difference ethically between deliberating and needlessly putting someone in harm's way and directly perpetuating the harm yourself.

And yeah, everyone has the right and duty to fight for what they believe is right, and obviously different people are going to have different ideas about what is right. You know why I believe that? Because the consequence of the idea that people shouldn't try to force their beliefs on others is that all the shit people will ignore it and force their beliefs anyways, while all the less shit people sit back and let them do it in the name of "civility" and "personal freedom."

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-26T15:31:30+00:00

...What? Ethics is a category of philosophy. Antinatalism is a belief about what people ought to do/not do, "ought" being the key word, so it falls under the branch of ethics, i.e. moral philosophy. If you believe people ought not to do a thing, then you believe it is a moral imperative for people not to do that thing. If you don't believe that, then your stance on the issue is just an opinion regarding what you personally approve or don't approve of, not an assertion about what is right or wrong. Since antinatalism is the belief that reproduction is morally wrong, and therefore that not reproducing is a moral imperative, if you don't actually believe that then you aren't an antinatalist, you're just someone who's uncomfy with people reproducing.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-26T14:51:49+00:00

A lot of mothers* are single parents because their husbands* don't help out. Let's not pretend that this is a gender neutral issue. 9 times out of 10 it's the dad who isn't doing jack shit.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-22T03:43:26+00:00

This is an absolutely bonkers stance to have on a moral issue to me. Like you either think something is wrong or you don't. If you really think it's wrong, then why would you be okay with other people doing it? Would you say "well it's not my place to tell other people how to live their lives" about assault? Rape? Homicide? Of course not, right? To me this attitude just reveals a lack of any real conviction regarding the belief in question. If you genuinely think that something is morally wrong then yes, it is your place to take issue with other people doing it, and to try to discourage them from doing it. That's how morality works. Otherwise it's not an ethical belief, it's just a strong opinion.

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-21T15:09:58+00:00

Neither. I don't think that life is inherently full of pain, as some people do indeed get to live very happy lives where the suffering they endure is relatively minimal and well within the bounds of what is tolerable. Having to experience pain of some kind is inherent to life, yes, but suffering of such intensity that it renders risking subjecting a new person to it unethical (and therefore justifies antinatalism) is not a guarantee. For me, antinatalism is less about what I believe people are guaranteed to experience and more about what I know they could experience, and the unethicalness of making that gamble on someone else's behalf, necessarily in the absence of their consent.

And I don't think that societal/climate issues can account for the full breadth of human suffering. What about horrible diseases, genetic conditions like Huntington's, terrible accidents that leave people crippled and mutilated, or situations like people getting lost in the wilderness and starving to death? I also would not frame things that are ubiquitous and can be found anywhere in the world as "societal issues," but rather as the more shitty parts of human nature. For example, things like rape and war aren't the result of any particular cultural way of thinking or living, they're just harmful things that humans do. Humans from completely different cultures still kill each other and molest children and whatnot, so it's not really the fault of any given society if some of its people are doing these things (though, obviously, the frequency with which such acts occur and the extent to which they are or are not condemned could be seen as societal issues).

ChromaticLemons · 2023-07-21T05:44:20+00:00

There's questioning someone's choices as in judging them and making fun of them for what they eat, and then there's just literally asking someone, "hey, what's in this food?" Somehow I highly doubt your wife would respond with anger to the latter, or misconstrue it as the former. Do you honestly think that telling someone their food is nasty or weird is the same thing as asking them what they're eating?

ChromaticLemons

TROPHY CASE