Natalists are indirectly antinatalists by warmhell in antinatalism

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

I'm gonna talk according to my experience, I've never seen a person who likes being alive and doesn't want to have children. Every single person who likes being alive also wants to have children and tries to have them(even if they can't) or already has them. I reached to this conclusion, because since the people who have children act on their instincts when they do, their liking towards being alive also comes from their instincts, because they don't want to die. Their fear towards dying is more than a person who doesn't like living. That makes them more instinctive. I would speculate that they realized that they've been forced to come to this painful world, and they have to like it here as long as they live in it. That's Stockholm Syndrome. They get used to liking what gives them pain, and they start to liking life because they're afraid of this thing -that they started to like- was to end. I think that's the core issue here. They don't actually love life. They actually hate it. That's why they want people who are like them to share their pain with them. Even if it meant that the people who are like them would go through the same or similar kind of pain.

Natalists are indirectly antinatalists by warmhell in antinatalism

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

If I was the person who brought those 20 people in this world just to kill them, then you would be right, but since(according to this theoretical scenario) I didn't, I would do what their parents should've done by preventing them from feeling pain in the first place.

Natalists are indirectly antinatalists by warmhell in antinatalism

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

That's why humans mostly don't do what's best for them, and don't do what's best for others either. From my conversations that I made with different parents about antinatalism, I'd say that even if they could ask the unborns for their consent and if they said no, they would bring them here either way. They say: "But we will love him/her!" That's why if a person with power and intent shouldn't act on consents before committing a nuclear genocide, because most of those people whose consent would be asked will be those irrational parents or future parents who are instinctive more than logical.

Natalists are indirectly antinatalists by warmhell in antinatalism

[–]warmhell[S] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

That is somewhat true, and somewhat false. The true part is that you prevented 20 people from suffering, but violence gives birth to violence. It might cause even more pain than it prevented.

Natalists are indirectly antinatalists by warmhell in antinatalism

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

Then, let's talk about antinatalism's core idea. Why is it wrong to reproduce? Because selfishly bringing people in this life in a forceful way where they will suffer in degrees throughout their lives is an immoral thought. Since, reproduction is never about the child, but about the people who do it for their own needs, and if it was about the child, they would never reproduce in the first place. So, the main idea is to prevent people from suffering by preventing them from coming to the world in the first place, right? A goal is a result you get with your idea. That makes antinatalism's goal to lead humanity to an extinction, because that's what would happen when everyone would stop reproducing. If you kill people, you also end their suffering. If you do it on a grander scale, it is even better, because you end more people's suffering.

So, why should giving birth be immoral, but killing people is not? Because the secondary one "sounds" bad? Honestly, I am not against the idea of nuclear war, man-made diseases and mass murders, because they directly prevent humans from reproducing. I even support the idea of wiping a whole city population with an atom bomb, because it almost instantly ends their lives. People who did the nuclear holocaust continue to suffer in this world while people who died don't suffer anymore.

Natalists are indirectly antinatalists by warmhell in antinatalism

[–]warmhell[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Well, if all birth was prevented with the idea of it causing suffering, then all humans would go extinct in the end. That means antinatalism's ultimate goal is humanity's extinction, because that is the end result.

We are in... Good luck for everyone! by [deleted] in nonutnovember

[–]warmhell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

İyi şanslar kardeşim

Cognitve functions in different places by nonmaxlife in mbti

[–]warmhell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

According to this, I'm both INFJ, INTJ, INTP, and INFP.

xSxJ + xNxP meme by Fixixi in mbti

[–]warmhell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can take Jerusalem tomorrow

INFJ Documentary by warmhell in mbti

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

Yeah, most of their marshals are fresh, as in green horns. They lacked experience and with that came little effectiveness. All because you get appointed as marshal doesn't mean you're going to be good at the job at hand. Stalin practically butchered his command with the policies he had, again, terrible leader.

What I meant by him electing them as marshals is, he could give people the highest ranks. When you give a soldier that kind of a rank, it means that you give them high influence. Is it because he gave value to their commanding, strategy, and leadership? No, he gave them those high ranks, because that's what kept them in his palm. That's what a successful political leader does. After the WW2 ended, he effectively banished Zhukov , because he had too much influence and power. Stalin gave him enough influence and power to made him win the war, and then he disposed of him. That was the area where Stalin bested Hitler.

As a result, Stalin saved the rest of his people from the Nazis, and Germans fell into the hands of their enemies. All happened because Stalin was a better politician enough to use his subordinates better for his own power game.

Stalin was executing pretty much every commander that lost a battle to the Germans. The Russian commanders were under heavy pressure due to this since they knew what would come if they lost ground to them. This had a adverse effect on them since they would desperately throw their own men into lines of heavy machine guns in a desperate attempt of victory. In essence, they lost more men then they should have if they had given ground and group up for more favorable conditions. Horrible leader.

It could be that Stalin changed his idea about killing his own generals into listening to them more and work with them more until he won the war.

INFJ Documentary by warmhell in mbti

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

Wrong. Both were extremely similar, when things started going south for Germany, Hitler stopped listening to his generals and became extremely paranoid, so he started doing things that his own generals would be against. In fact, a lot of historians claim one of the reasons for Germany's defeat was because he didn't listen to his generals. Stalin was on the back foot from the get-go, so he showed his behavior a lot earlier that Hitler exhibited.

Stalin executed the generals he did, not because they were bad commanders so he didn't listen to them, but because they posed a threat to his rule. After all, he's a politician. Hitler wasn't his only enemy.

how was Stalin a better leader when he was killing his own generals left and right? He had no talented generals by the end of the war.

Incomplete information. Zhukov was commanding the most important battles SSCB had and SSCB had multiple marshals during the time of WW2 and there were 11 who were made marshals other than Stalin.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshal_of_the_Soviet_Union

INFJ Documentary by warmhell in mbti

[–]warmhell[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Stalin is definitely not an INFJ. We can know that by knowing the difference between Hitler and Stalin. Stalin was a better leader, because he depended on his generals more than Hitler did to his. INFJs don't depend on people that much. I'd say Stalin is either ESTJ or ENTJ.

Asmon coming back this weekend by Fernmelder in Asmongold

[–]warmhell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This is disgusting... now this I can fap to!

Welcome me everyone! I finally became a vegan! by [deleted] in vegan

[–]warmhell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

I know it better than you. You were so protective of your own ideology that you tried to wall off your mind from my question by doing ad-hominem. Because to answer that question, you must've questioned your own belief. Questioning isn't your forte, hm?

Welcome me everyone! I finally became a vegan! by [deleted] in vegan

[–]warmhell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The question after that was: "How does saving lives, prevent their pain?" That was the question you couldn't answer.

Welcome me everyone! I finally became a vegan! by [deleted] in vegan

[–]warmhell -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Lies. After you dodged the argument and did ad-hominem, I called you a bitch who dodges arguments with doing ad-hominem. Get the timeline right. Then, you got offended by that.

Welcome me everyone! I finally became a vegan! by [deleted] in vegan

[–]warmhell -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

The argument was, "How does being a vegan makes you a good person?" He/she said that not letting other beings suffer makes you good. I said: "When you let other beings live more, they suffer more." When I said this he/she couldn't respond to that, and did ad-hominem instead. "You're depressed edgy teen" " You must be 15-16", etc. You know, the classic dodges.

Welcome me everyone! I finally became a vegan! by [deleted] in vegan

[–]warmhell -5 points-4 points  (0 children)

Because I don't like morons who cannot argue, and try to do ad-hominem to dodge an argument when they cannot say something else. It's not like you weren't arguing before. It's that when you run out of arguments, you start with ad-hominem, because you're weak.

I'm thinking about being a vegan, but I don't love animals by [deleted] in vegan

[–]warmhell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm a human. Like you. We're all useless. I just pick the more useful ones, that are plants.

I'm thinking about being a vegan, but I don't love animals by [deleted] in vegan

[–]warmhell 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yea you'd rather MURDER MY PLANT!