Antinatalism Debate | Father VS Antinatalist 

He must be right i mean shwarznegger said so

Looking forward to this discussion

Why do you even bother with this guy, i pity his children. What a narcissist!

Disgusting is kind of a stretch but it's kind of what you are forced to say if you believe life is worth living and a net good.

@@JohnSmith-yt8di yeah it is quite diabolical/evil to say something like that.... sadistic, psychopathic also comes to mind

@@incorectulpolitic its disgusting to allow unfit people to breed. I am sympathetic to AN but your genes to a large degree determine your quality of life.

People (natalists) are psychopaths... I will never understand how sadistic and ignorant natalists (who willingly reproduce) can be...

Agreed it really is disgusting.

Good point. In the context of Antinatalism, suffering is always presented as a learning opportunity, but I think it is overly optimistic. I would argue that the majority of suffering is to be regretted.

And even worse, you could survive the freak accident. A drunk driver could hit you and the car could catch fire. You could get paralyzed. It's terrifying what could happen!

Exactly, I wonder how'd this father dude feel if he suffers some tragic diseases before finally died. And btw he and his children won't be able to choose those diseases. One second lmao, what a total joke.

​@@birdiecultureHence, anti-natalism does not follow. You can die from a painful illness and not regret your birth at the same time.

Most old people do not regret their birth.

Agreed!, because it's the truth! 😊❤🖤

You cannot argue with the truth and hope to win.

Antinatalism is BULLET PROOF

But lose at life

@@tangerinesarebetterthanora7060 my comment hurt your feelings ? :D nooice

Eugenics is logically and morally wrong this world and nature is so cruel and ruthless and meaningless and brutal we talk about root problem of this nature that's so disgusting and cruel and ugly and evil and brutal and etc.. Eugenics do not solve problem life in this world must be stopped

@@relskull3324lol eugenics is actually good you are just too dumb to understand why

(Not cliche and i am super serious in asking this -> I have no intention of making you mad or hurt over this) Going by your logic what's worth preserving in your own life? You will 100% create suffering for other people in your lifetime... Does that bother you?

@@bhavjotsingh3190 I don't know what it is with you breeders or the anti-antinatalists that you can't understand the whole logic and premise of antinatalism. It's not about "preserving my life or what's in it". I don't know how many times we have to repeat this to make your dead brains understand it. Once we're here, we're here and we cannot change it and we CANNOT kill ourselves because antinatalism is NOT about ending an ALREADY EXISTING LIFE, that's to say nothing about religious beliefs that make suicide a SIN. Can you stop repeating this stupid question about why we don't end our lives ? I don't know but I think natalists are naturally stupid too.

There a million bad things that can happen to you tomorrow. Why not stop your own suffering today! Oh, it's because the rules don't apply to you, right? You only owe non-existent people protection from all those what ifs, but don't owe yourself the protection of non-existence? Any AN who is alive is a walking contradiction.

@@shawn4110 You don't have much of a brain. Do you ? Of course NOT. If I we were talking to a donkey it would've understood but obviously even a donkey is smarter than you. I'm not going to waste any more time on another IDIOT. Go watch the videos again and TRY to get the point but I DOUBT a zombie like you will ever get the point even if we repeat it a billion times. I tell you what I tell others like you - KEEP GRAZING.

The "someone" you're referring to didn't exist before having "their entire existence imposed upon them", there is no something that is also nothing; so no, I wouldn't say it is logically inconsistent per say (however much of a red herring it is given the subject), the only self-evident inconsistency here is the fact that the "antinatalist" is arguing for position which can only exist if the one making argument does first... Non-existence is nothing, nothing doesn't exist and if it did it would be something and therefore not, in the first place, "nothing" (which I hope I've made clear, is a nonsensical concept). Something is ALL there is, antinatalists exercise a lot of their energy attempting to prove a negative, which, as anyone with a brain knows, is axiomatically retarded.

@@lancewalker2595 Preventionism because: - no one is asking you to force them here to perpetuate your damn atrocious, despicable, reckless genes - no one is asking you to force them here to so that YOU will have something to do in order to not get bored - no one is asking you to force them here to perpetuate your damn religion and or political beliefs and or other beliefs - no one is asking you to force them here to become a slave to keep the economy ‘going’ - no one is asking you to force them here to perpetuate your hate for another race/country/religion. - no one is asking you to force them here to take care of you when old - no one is asking you to force them here to perpetuate your damn culture. - no one is asking you to force them here to perpetuate your damn race - no one is asking you to force them here to die for a flag or a stupid country (in reality, for the BANKERS) - no one is asking you to force them here to keep you company. - no one is asking you to force them here to save your damn relationship - no one is asking you to force them here to help you play house. - no one is asking you to force them here to "admire" a sunset and the ‘beautiful nature’ (where nature would kill you in a nano second with zero problems) - no one is asking....to come here because, no one exists to have that desire… fuck no to forcing non-consenting humans into this shitty cosmic slaughterhouse/asylum/zoo . Unfortunately so many more nonexistent, nonconsenting beings are forced into this deathtrap prison planet everyday because of ignorant, bozo selfish humans that have no capacity to think and look at this world and life objectively. So many babies are born nearly everyday because this human species is too callously selfish to weigh the costs and concequences of their actions. Humans don't think. We act like we are so advanced intellectually and socially but we still take actions like animals. We are still impulsive and do things based on instincts rather than through rational thought or intention. The thousands or millions of cases of accidental pregnancies is evidence of this.

Ofcoz its logically inconsistent, otherwise how'd they be able to exploit their "right" to create an entirely new human just for their own uses / pleasure? You are the selfish one coz you don't let me be a piece of arse.

@@birdieculture What?

How can you impose existence on someone? Is there some non-existent person who can be made to exist??

It is so beneficial to have Lawrence and others in the Antinatalist community. Patience is definitely a virtue!

I didn't finish. This guy sounds like a capitalist loving Christian who will argue for an hour before he reveals the Bible told him to do it. Just say that's your real reason from the start and quit wasting other's time.

Welcome to the channel!

Lawrence is an excellent debater. I enjoy every conversation that he uploads.

🔥💯👍

Yes, but what did you think of the discussion with Dustin?

Lynm1789 I agree 🔥💯👍

Dude, have you ever talked to parents at all? Or at least to any other people?..

​@@thejohnreview9650Yes, we talk to u selfish parents. Heck, we have parents. It's ALL about what YOU WANT.... who cares what u impose on others. IT SATISFIES YOU. Now u can play a hero by "PrOTeCtiNg & pRoViDinG

The Father is soo far up his own Asshole that he didn't care about his Child's Suffering, Pain and Death Sentence he forced into that Child.

exactly, for sadists/psychos, consent is not in their dictionary...

@@incorectulpolitic 100%. This guy saying "consent is a relatively new concept" is very telling about his sense of ethics.

So unborn children can really consent to something, it's just that we are so bad that we don't specifically ask them? Here you just need to ask yourself a question, why consent is important. It is important in order to avoid violence against a person: what if this guy did not want something, and we did it with him? In the case of an unborn child, there is no any person. Accordingly, consent is not required.

So you are a total psychopath power tripping megalomaniacal monster. you can;t get consent from the HUMAN you are trying to force into this pointless death trap insane asylum horror show, THAT IS THE POINT. You can;t get consent so don;t do it. It can;t be simpler than that. @@thejohnreview9650

No, it's not. In the case of the prohibition of reproduction, violence is committed against people. When we give birth to a child, we do not commit any violence against him. Not to mention that not everything authoritarian is automatically bad.

yup... everybody from the age of 10 is extremely high on copium

You are the author of the occult of the unborn?

MuH NaZiS...a real groundbreaking thinker here. Brave, outside the box this breeder. Cartoonish levels of cherry picking and survivor bias.

@@zero.enthusiasm7057 Yes, but it has gotten me into trouble.

@@selimgure I am sorry to hear that! From what I have read it is a good book.

😂😂

Leeettsss goooo ooo

Thanks for coming on Dustin! 🔥

Thank you !

If anything it's a testament to how hard we have to cope and delude ourselves just to keep going which only further serves to illustrate why life is a net negative and something to prevent from being passed on.

If no one exists, then who is better off?

if no one exists then who would be here to suffer? @@thejohnreview9650

​@@thejohnreview9650the planet

Non-existence cannot be 'better' because there is no experience of non-existence. Why do you feel justified in determining on someone else's behalf what is better for them? Another logical inconsistency with the AN position. A parent decides that a child is better off getting the gift of life, that is a problem for you, but AN deciding no one should be given life, they are totally fine being the arbiter themselves.

Probably difficult to convince someone (on the spot) that there is more suffering than pleasure. First it depends whether you mean globally or personally. We can bite the bullet and grant that there is more pleasure, I would say that it is "bad enough as a whole", meaning that there can be a threshold to make it not worth bringing a child into existence. If humans grapple with pleasure and pains in life, then that takes into accounts values, long-term interests and other pursuits that make it worth to feel uncomfortable. Nevertheless, people tend to escape discomfort of all sorts.

Yes, and what is he wrong about? Most people don't regret that they exist.

​@@thejohnreview9650CDC would disagree with u being that suicide is top leading cause of death and growing yearly.

@@antinatalistwitch111I agree with you. I just wanted to correct this. It’s not the top leading cause of death. I believe it’s the top cause of death amongst teenagers. And plus, there are lots of attempts. 1 suicide in America every 11 minutes. “In 2021, an estimated 12.3 million American adults seriously thought about suicide, 3.5 million planned a suicide attempt, and 1.7 million attempted suicide.”

Yes,and our society is collapsing so bringing a baby into this polluted and climate changing world is foolish .

False. Once true hardship arises birth rates will rise astronomically. Men and women will snap right back into their primal roles under pressure.

@@andredubois4601 😅🤣😂😆

@@incorectulpolitic what is your opinion on this matter? Am I wrong, am I right?

Although what you say sounds logical, the reproduction rate is much higher in countries with worse economies or in poor regions within the same country. There are obviously much more important factors in the equation than the economy.

This debate is really stupid to begin with. The Father is soo far up his own Asshole that he didn't care about his Child's Suffering, Pain and Death Sentence he forced into that Child.

And how should the presence of suffering prevent us from creating new beings?

​​@@KyleEvraAre you sure his child cares?

​​@@thejohnreview9650why is it so crucial for u to create new beings? Is your own life not sufficient enough for u?

​@@antinatalistwitch111Because he values life and thinks it's worth preserving.

Yes, but this does not imply anti-natalism. Well, there are a lot of bad things in life. But this is not enough to outweigh all the good things. There are many people who have a hard life, but they do not regret their birth.

@@thejohnreview9650 Someone (not) regretting their birth has nothing to do with the fact that the being that has been brought into existence has been seriously harmed. All new borns are essentially innocent, and all of these newborn humans will face serious harms and injustices (pains, losses, suffering, sickness and death). Causing serious harms and injustices to innocent beings is ethically wrong. Therefore, procreation is wrong.

One does not follow from the other. Anitnatalistm does not comment whether people who are alive are happy that they are alive. Antinatalism is about the decision-making process of bringing new sentient beigns into existence. It is one thing to assert that humans can go through and bear a lot of adversities and harms versus it is indecent to knowingly bring a being into existence that will suffer all of these consequences.@@thejohnreview9650

We have no moral obligations whatsoever. It's just that there are behavioral strategies that are most beneficial for us to follow in order to live the best life. That's all.

And what's the problem?..

What do you mean? @@thejohnreview9650

Correct. Deal with it pussy.

@@lancewalker2595 nice to see breediotards revealing their true sadistic, psychopathic, diabolical nature. Thank you. Keep commenting.

I dont see how antinatalism is dependent on materialism. Im not entirely convinced of it now as someone that does not believe in the Gods or an afterlife but if i believed in any of the versions of Christianity around me i would probably lean farther antinatalist.

@@spectrepar2458 The essence of Christianity emphasizes the inherent value of human life regardless of outcomes, while utilitarianism places emphasis on maximizing overall happiness or utility, they don't mix together. if I were to adopt the most charitable interpretation of utilitarianism amidst some troublesome ethical questions and examine all the data, it would lead me to advocate for antinatalism in certain regions with huge populations with lower average IQs (essentially eugenics). Population dynamics and intelligence levels can impact societal structures; and usually, the happiest societies are those with higher IQs and homogeneity, such as the Nordic countries. The idea of advocating for antinatalism there would seem unreasonable unless you really dislike functioning societies and human life flourishing. Countries that produce the most babies, like Africa, often have babies with lower IQs in the range of 70 to 85, making it challenging for them to sustain a modern Western civilization, the most developed regions are former colonies where they speak European languages like french and have infrastructure built by the Europeans or Chinese. Lower IQ humans will not be able to advance what they are given, leading to perpetual suffering. This situation is evident in South Africa today. Western civilization, which originated from European people with IQs in the range of 95 to 105, evolved through adaptation to harsh environments and usually are the places where most people want to live and thrive. In fact, the most educated people who contribute the most to the advancement of our civilization tend to have fewer children. Western civilization is crumbling due to declining birth rates. Advocating for antinatalism here in Eruope or North America seems rather pointless; instead, the focus should shift towards encouraging procreation in native groups. When established economies experience birth rates below replacement levels, they seek a workforce from other countries mostly developing ones (for a reason developing). This will lead to a lack of cohesion with multiculturalism, reduced trust, and increased crime and perpetual class division. Looking at the scientific data, it's hard to deny that eugenics might be the right answer then. More competent, homogeneous, intelligent people in the world could result in more cohesive societies, leading to development and abundance. Mental suffering could be resolved in the future with modern medicine so you would have functioning, abundant societies overflowing with love, compassion, joy, and ever-changing experiences, growing even more amazing with time.. From a utilitarian perspective, arguments against such cherry picked antinatalism seem weak. But I'm not a Utalitarian so I see value in all races, and every human life as infinitely valubale even amid suffering or lack of certain capabilites.

@@CroElectroStile Im not a utilitarian. The inherent human value in Christianity comes from God, the same God that has built a system where my child has a high likelihood of believing the wrong thing and being burned alive for all eternity. Forgive me if im more concerned about the chance of my child being burned alive than the opinion of a God who created such a circumstance.

@@spectrepar2458 It seemse to me You misunderstand Christianity, at least the Catholic position on this which is the oldest form of Christianity, apostolic and the largest Christian group: For example, there is a term called invincible ignorance. It refers to a lack of knowledge or understanding that is unavoidable despite a sincere effort to understand, know, and seek truth. In matters of faith, this concept suggests that someone can still have an acceptable faith even if they lack full knowledge of specific teachings. Invincible ignorance removes blame for not comprehending the finer points of faith that are inherently connected to foundational beliefs, such as the existence of God and His reward for good deeds (Hebrews 11:6). All Truths Virtually Contained Ther are core beliefs, sometimes called "fountainhead articles,". Invincible ignorance allows for someone to have an acceptable faith even if they lack knowledge of more specific doctrines, as long as their core belief are there, with the condition of invicible ignorance they were not culpable for not drawing the rest of specific dotrines that are virtualy contianed in the fountainhead articles: Faith and Charity Faith can be acceptable with core beliefs and remorse for sins, people that don't believe in God as well can die and be saved if they die with acts of perfect charity or perfect contrition - this flows from faith as well because faith in Catholicism isn't mental assent i'ts infused grace- so they would technically die in faith it just wouldn't be explicitly expressed in specific doctrines, there is such thing as Aristotelian distinction between Mater and Form and you can aplply it to the Church as well, meaning the Church has a soul and a body, so you can formally be attached to the body of Christ or materially. etc. You can read Scholastic's more on this if you want. HELL Hell is not a specific location with fire and brimstone. The Apostles described it with fire and worms as symbolic expressions of destruction, referencing the destructive nature of fire in their time (crops=their lively hood) this is the way ancient near eastern authors wrote, if you don't study ancient near eastern context (I recommend Dr. Walton and Heiser) What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. Hell starts in this life not in the next, it just goes on. It can start on this earth within a person, but it becomes fully apparent and realized in Hell, Hell is ossified evil, i'ts not humans as we know it rather incarnations of pure rage, anger, fury towards that which is good, towards God. I'ts pure mallice, i'ts a body of Stan (Satan means opposition). CS Lewis said: Heaven is this ever-increasing, further up, further into joy, into God, into life. Hell is the opposite of that. It’s an everlasting movement away from God. That movement starts here, people don't suddenly murder after having a good life and then end up in hell, you demonize yourself, habituate yourself for Hell, you don't want to be with God, your life start to revolve around spite towards him. In this life we can rationally deliberate which means we can use reason and we have free will, and sinners obstinately sought to exalt themselves without first giving thanks and acknowledging God as the source of their life. people can be determined in sin and they defile their bodies, seduced they steal the pleasures and mock God, they attach themselves to fragile and perishable things. pleasure for its own sake, obsession, the excess in All Things. God gives us what we want, if we choose evil then that's what he gives us =the effects: so in Hell, this body of damned are incapable of love, not even itself it has perfect ill will - detests everyone around them, there's this frustration because it can't obtain what it want's, i'ts constant grumbling and lashing out among themselves and towards God. God allows such a place to exist because of Justice, i'ts just and good to have evil be pusnihed. the evil in hell lost it’s power to effect anythin external to the one who is committing it, that is close to non existence you can get, it's not quite non existence but i'ts impotent evil.

@CroElectroStile I very clearly stated i was referring to forms of Christianity commonly practiced arround me, which in the southeastern US is primarily protestant with infernalist views. You practice one of the many forms of Christianity and the religion is so varied it should almost be treated as several different religions. Even if hell is not fire is it still extremely bad. What happens to people that come to the belief that God is not real and the God described in the Bible has an extremely terrible character?

Get the discussion going, broski. What's your claim?

Typical natalist gaslighting. We know there's nothing wrong with us, we just have a stronger argument than most. Besides, some of us stopped sniffing the copium a while ago and feel liberated

@@Raziel433 the problem is that breediotards have NO argument . ZERO. NADA.

@@EastWindCommunity1973 Aw shie I guess you're right I didn't think of that. I really don't have any insight worth sharing hence why I thought to seek conversations people have had about this. Emotionally, I feel a deep sense of appreciation for life. My fond memories of childhood and my affection for children make it natural for me to empathize with the joys of life. This, in part, could be due to my self-involvement, which influences my positive view of humanity. However, I also believe that the goals of evolution aren't inherently aligned with our moral objectives. Evolution might prioritize something like biomass, which doesn't necessarily hold value for us. The fact that something is 'natural' doesn't automatically make it 'good.' In my view, being human involves choosing the right path, not just the natural one. There's a profound and beautiful aspect to the idea that in our quest to do what's right, we might make choices that could lead to our own extinction. Regarding the antinatalist perspective, I wonder if their concerns, partly rooted in the anxiety over death's inevitability, might change if aging were no longer a factor. If individuals who enjoy life are confident in their ability to raise a happy child, is it fair to criticize them for the lack of consent from the unborn? On the other hand, if people indifferent to their potential child's happiness choose to procreate, it seems unlikely that they can be voluntarily dissuaded. Admittedly, I'm still exploring this topic and need to read more about it. What's your view?

​@@pixellips "I also believe that the goals of evolution aren't inherently aligned with our moral objectives." This times a thousand. I would go so far as to say it is nowhere near the vacinity of the ballpark of morality. The history of existence is an absolutely brutal one. The story that it takes for any species to still be around is comparable to what was done in the Roman Colosseum. That's the game. If you can focus on the game, then the concept of antinatalism is a lot easier to understand. The game is zero sum. You have an existence with a seemingly infinite amount of sentient life which has a seemingly infinite amount of "wants" and "needs" with a very finite amount of "gets" and those "gets" are at the expense of someone else. The more players you have in the game, the more losers you are going to have. It isn't anywhere near as simple as "I like my life, hence and therefore existence is good". Some antinatalists may like their life, some may not. It really isn't the point. You have things like the lack of consent to bringing existence onto somebody. You have things like thinking about the harm caused by the behavior that the human will be responsible for, whether it be the direct or indirect (choices via the supply and demand marketplace) harm. You have things like the opportunity cost in regards to time, money, and resources that is lost in providing need for those that are already here, instead of creating a need when it's not necessary to do so. You have things like contributing another mindless consuming normie into a world that has a surplus of it, but for some reason, people feel they are doing something important by adding to the tally. You have things like if you are even a decent enough of a parent (which is a BIG if) to raise a compassionate human being, how they will be more prone to depression, because this world is quite brutal to those that see it from an empathetic view. And I'm just scratching the surface. You can go on and on and on and on about the total lack of macro thought that is given by the average John and Jane Q Public when it comes to the subject of adding more humans into this world. It's nothing more simple than "my genes" and "I want". "Ignorance is bliss" may be the most accurate and succinct description of the human species. Somebody saying that they are happy with their life doesn't really give you the full story. "It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society" - Jiddu Krishnamurti

As an antinatalist, it's so cringe.

It's not just that term, either. There's *far* too much sledging of non-ANs from ANs. Puts me right off and I know I'm not the only one.

@andrewsmcintosh I've only seen breeder used, but I wouldn't be surprised if there were more. I strongly believe in antinatalism. However, I don't think we are going to get anywhere if we ostracize and bully people. I see this only working through being kind, patient, and trying to educate people. So by just insulting them and coming up with less than clever slurs is only going to make the rift between antinatalists and natalists bigger and make it harder for us to actually try and get people to see things our way.

Yup! Agreed. It's actually getting out of control honestly

I agree, the word *breediotards* sounds like a much better descriptive word.

RU-vid is a clickbait world.

Bro stop hating

He does not.

@@CarnismDebunked all of his arguments are kind of weak then - I respect his personal preference but he doesn’t have much ground to stand on.

@@moonboy5851 um, what? Why would you need to have kids to be opposed to procreation? That is like saying you have to have murdered someone to be against murder.

@@CarnismDebunked such an immature, childish mindset. He has much to learn. I hope he gets there one day

@@moonboy5851 how is it immature and childish? He has studied the philosophy of anti-natalism deeply. It sounds like you have no real understanding of the arguments.