Discussing Antinatalism & Ethics With Greydon Square 

Good. Less competition for my children 😂

@@Getcakedieyoung23 you are forcing your children to compete with other this shows that you don't care about your children

Human cock fighting on the existential level 😂

​@@FactsCountdownhe doesn't have kids, just a larper

@@FactsCountdown The modern western world is one of the safest and most socially stable places in all of history. You guys thinking it is cruel to put a child into the western world is peak decadency. The most selfish thing someone can do is to live in this society with all its advantages and then not contributing to its upholding by not making and raising new children.

Mine too

Someday, some lifetime, you'll realize that you did, in fact, choose it. That's gonna be an extremely empowering day for you. 🙏🏻

​@ethanstewartstevenson7309 Yes, because sperm and egg cells have consciousness and the ability to make decisions. When u inherent a biological disease, remember u chose it! 😊

​@@ethanstewartstevenson7309 when u inherent a biological disease, remember u chose it. 😊

Exactly.

Yes it's very efilist

@@dio69666 except when he speaks on veganism or sentience. he thinks microbes and plants are out here suffering. very not efilist in that regard.

​@@sneakycactus8815yea sry hes a dum piece ashit whats this shit hes talking i dont wanna be like u do u look for rolemodel ur grown

@@sneakycactus8815 All living organisms suffer from distress and hardship.

Yes

​@@dio69666hi

Parents are responsible for what ever happens to there children for life we did not ask to be here we were all forced to endure every that happens to us even the ageing the dying process

Oh don’t bring these dumb terms here please

You clearly don't understand what it means to be a alpha male. Alpha males are leaders. How can antinatalists be leaders when there are no other people to lead?

What songs?

Their the gatekeepers to this HELL

Next lvl of carny idiotism honestly id just fire fok debating that🤣

@@user-vl7ho7hz7ci was gonna say lol. i don't think benedictines watched the whole video before commenting.

😂😂😂

No, life is not a gift. Gifts can be declined, or returned. Life is an imposition no one ever asked for.

Awesome!

I love my mom but I didn’t ask to be here. She didn’t give consent for my conception but here we are

unfit

I hate them.

Ignorant naive selfish sadistic narcissists

Also "life deserves to be here", "what about the microbes", "plants suffer too", "I'm gonna eat meat just to spite vegans, and also cause survival and nature says it's okay", "vegans aren't ethical cause they are paying into the military industrial complex". He doesn't care about suffering. At least not nearly enough to have consistent ethics. He's like one of those nihilists that complains about suffering but then goes on to say everything is meaningless. Like which is it? Does suffering have meaning and value or not? Or are you gonna have it both ways and be a walking contradiction? like he acknowledges that life is suffering, and that it's better that there's nothing than something; so therefore he is not going to have children. but on the other hand, "suffering exists therefore it doesn't matter if i contribute to it" by eating meat. nature "condones" the eating and torture of other sentient beings and also condones the unmitigated procreation of them as well, but he only steps away from one of these actions and rationalizes the other. in fact, he leans into the meat eating just to spite others who just want to reduce the human caused suffering in the world. it just doesn't make any sense.

Meh i mostly apear in the coment section

Legend!

Another legend!

🔥🔥

Finally someone pointing this out. He made the "what about microbes" argument which turned me off completely, as well as "plants suffer too". They both do not feel nor do they suffer. no central nervous system, no brain. They aren't sentient, therefore it's no problem. To factor them in a moral argument is disingenuous and intellectually dishonest. He makes appeals to nature, while also being against it. if nature says it's okay to torture and eat other sentient beings alive, then why abstain from procreation? it's about "survival" isn't it? that's the argument he makes against veganism and reducing suffering. so why not pump out some kids in order to "better aid your survival" and "immortalize" you? Nature solely intended for it's creations to consume and reproduce. that's the game we're playing. so why this pick and choosing? where's the logical consistency? He also recognizes that it's better that there's nothing rather than something, because the something will always have the potential to suffer and there's no avoiding it. But he wouldn't press the red button. There's certainly a lack of integrity in terms of how much he *actually* cares about suffering. But otherwise, he was a great guest and i appreciated some of the things he had to say.

@@sneakycactus8815So you would press the red button although a huge amount of people wants to live??

The question based on that answer would also have to be would those people have children? Hypothetically, both of those questions would compromise other peoples choices.

​​@@EliasRykartA lot of people are dying and going to die just because life exists. So if you really want people's will to not to be violated, you should press that button, to sacrifice few, but to save a lot, because future is gigantic, future is way bigger than present.

​​​@@EliasRykart yes. combinero already laid it out for you, but i'll go a bit more in-depth. death is not the same imposition as life. you didn't want to live before you were born because you didn't exist, and likewise you won't once you're dead. people only want to live because of dna programming and psychology. that is the only reason it continues. what you're really asking me is, "you'd stop all the horrible atrocities and pointless, useless day-to-day suffering and strife that occurs because people like to chase cheese?" "you'd stop rape even though the rapist is having a good time?" also, you're making a logical fallacy by appealing to majority. the majority of people in nazi germany were fine with the status quo of their empire, does that make it okay? the majority of people throughout history have approved and participated in slavery, does that make it okay? the majority of people eat meat and contribute to the torture and slaughter of animals, does that make it okay? the majority of people think it's okay to thrust new sentient beings into existence, where they are guaranteed to suffer and die for no purpose, does that make it okay? the majority of people would happily step on someone else for their own gain, does that make it okay? i could keep going, but for the sake of brevity i'll cut it there. but appeal to majority is a fallacy and i needed to address that. there is objective truth and objective morality. but the masses have never thirsted after either because it doesn't benefit them. what goes for morality for 98% of people is whatever the social norm is at the time. truth is not measured in mass appeal. legal does not mean moral. instead, the real question you should be asking yourself is, "why do most people want to live?" they only want to because they've narrowed the scope of their consciousness, are programmed to be psychopathic on some level, are egoistic, engage in delusions like religion or pseudo-spirituality, and distract themselves with entertainment, intoxicants, and pleasures. this is extremely simplified of course, but i'm not here to write an entire philosophical treatise on why life continues to perpetuate. but seeing as you're in the comment section of an antinatalist video, you're in the right place to learn more. your question highlights the fundamental issue with utilitarianism. it allows for the justification of obscenities and tragedies because of a small amount of apparent "positive" gained. and seeing as there is no intrinsic positive to existing, there is no antecedent purpose for the existence of life, it requires more and more sentient beings to be roped in to function (like a ponzi scheme), and there's enormous cost paid for its perpetuation, i am 100% pressing that red button without a single moment of hesitation. future generations will not be deprived because they do not exist yet. and the people and animals currently living now will not be deprived because they will no longer exist to care. it will be sparing them the imposition of life, and by extension suffering. life is suffering. both in religion and philosophy, this is the fact of the world. there is no need to create need, nor any need to perpetuate it. one last thing. life is going to end one day anyway. the universe has a finite timetable for the existence of life, and it's cosmically short. why does it need to be perpetuated in such futility? it accomplishes nothing, and is doomed to fail anyways. may as well stop the train here before an innumerable amount of future sentient beings are sacrificed for nothing.

hi 🥺

it's flawed because it supposes something that is impossible to begin with, highly speculative and incoherent at best.

Maybe we could imagine a world where when parents try to have a child, it "opens a door to the unborn world". When an unborn child sees this door, they could choose to enter and to be born in this family. That way, it would be a free choice for both the parents and the child. But yeah, we have no good reason to think that this is the case. And if the child doesn't remember their prenatal choice, should we say that it is still their choice when born? And are they the same individual?

Adblock?

😴

@@francisdec1615 Thank you for your stimulating insights.

PROVE THIS WITHOUT REASONABLE DOUBT OR STOP YOUR PSUEDO SPIRTUAL LAW OF ATTRACTION BABBLE.

Sometimes I also wonder whether certain people are equivalent to a cucumber.

It will never cease to amaze me that the "crop deaths tho" and "plant have feelings tho" group can't sit there and marinate on what they are going to say before they say it and ask themselves one question.....what do these billions upon billions of farm animals consume? For the 23895793240923840923840923rd time.....if you are being genuine about what you are saying (which of course you are not), your position would be VEGAN. No or Less farm animals being force bred into existence means less crops grown to feed them, which would mean less plant "slaughter" and less crop deaths. Well, I'm off to slaughter my neighbor's puppy because he stepped on a blade of my grass on my lawn as there is no difference between these two actions. I'm just that spiritual.

Ok and plants aren’t animals but even if plants could feel we still don’t have to kill many plants to eat from them and sometimes cutting a plant and harvesting part of the plant can help it survive.