I like him, but only in the context of the current time period and the world order that the elites and Klaus Schwab in particular are preparing for us.
Yes, the new world will look like a mix of Orwell's 1984 and Huxley's Brave New World.
I'm just waiting for bezos to make a rapture city or new eden
But it will only be for the elite. I also remember how the rich hid in their mansions from covid in 2020 or how the rich bought up nuclear bunkers during 2022, when there was a risk that the war in Ukraine would become nuclear.
Yeah... a man can pray tho
Why?
Probably and with who? well, idk. Probably some foreign deeply religious woman
In my defence, I'm also envious of those who can be parents.
Rather nobody can consent to be. You start existing in that body when it develops enough to support a person.
if you're a CHAD it doesnt make sense not to reproduce. Your CHAD son will benefit from the subhuman workers without having to put any effort, he will get female affection and will end up just as successful as yourself.
'. But that is literally based on their own being happy, not the state of the world itself, let alone if it is rightful. So that is not why I am antinatalist. People who like life aren't and people who don't, are, that is biased as FUCK.see this is bias. Life forms want to life. Really it does not matter what his son will do. Antinatalism is an argument and he should have a belief on principle, is it right or not. But we aren't capable of this. The idea is just 'if he will be happy then it makes no sense to be anti natalist'. Humans are not really capable of considering the point of the argument or the ethics. 99.9999% just go off of 'i am happy so breeding is a noble thing or i am not happy so it is not' and the only argument ever given for why is 'happy = good i am not happy so i am antinatalist'. It should be based on principle, if we were not evil creatures
The consent argument doesn't hold water, because it's like saying, "supporting/opposing the natural rights of the non-existent people." It's not a cogent position.
You weren't there then to say yes, but you're here now to say no i.e., suicide. I'm not saying you should kys to be rationally consistent (you would be in that case), but you're in the converse position now.
This is strictly untrue. Cities are overcrowded, but in terms of livable landmass, we're covering a very tiny part of the whole planet.
Isn't this kind of similar to the most common argument against nationalism? "It is pure coincidence where you were born" Both assume that we are floating as souls in some kind of sphere until we are randomly inserted into human bodies.
I'm not sure I follow you. Please elaborate.
I like it but I don't fully support it. Life wouldn't be so bad if foids and niggers didn't exist.
Anti-nationalist argument: Nationalism (putting your people first)is nonsense because we are all born in our nation and race by chance.
my first comment literally starts with "Isn't this kind of similar to the most common argument against nationalism?"
And the answer is, "no, it isn't." I said three different things in my earlier post you quoted and none of them are even tangential to what you're saying in regards to circumstances of birth.
You can clearly see that I was making a fitting comparison, not misunderstanding the topic.
My response to OP's consent argument is not analogous or related to your point about not choosing which country you're born into. That's a completely irrelevant and separate point altogether.
you said that people can't agree to be born because they don't exist. My point was that anti-nationalists like to make the similar assumption that there is such a thing as a pre-sphere from which one is brought into the world.
OK, whatever. That's cool, I guess. That's not what I'm getting at, and this pre-sphere idea is just some faith-based mumbo jumbo.
Well, I agree with the latter fully if it wasn't clear from my previous comments.
