Exploring the philosophy and ramifications of antinatalism; that is, the belief that life should not be brought into existence.
And, maybe, reconsiders the custom of laying eggs.
TheAmazingWastieist has argued the same point in two of his videos here and here. I just can't believe the number of positive upvotes and stupid comments. Inmendham responds here and here.
When I see an Inmendham video like this, it makes me realize how much I do NOT belong on YouTube. Video is his forte, and he is SO goddamned great at it! Makes me feel good that he has it covered.Keep doing what you do, Inmendham. On your worst day you're better than most, and when you're on, you're on like no other. Bless you (and this coming from an atheist, no less.)
Totally aside from the ordinary/normal level of people suffering the average or even more fortunate than average people have...Totally aside from our inevitable death or species demise...If people choose to be so atttached to our animal natures..then may I suggest that people should not be born in the first place? Not because of misanthropy, but because - as Abbie put it some time back - there's just something objectively wrong with human nature itself. This is especially true of a post-Stone Age society like 21st Century Planet EarthALSO, I answered mrsneutrongarage (who has the chicken post on his site). He has yet to post it that I can see.
I saw no point filbabat. Upon reading that my comments were no longer welcome here the question of communication became moot.
"I saw no point filbabat. Upon reading that my comments were no longer welcome here the question of communication became moot."Of course, what I ACTUALLY said was:"NOTICE: I'll be deleting mrsneutronsgarage's future comments until he manages to pull something out of his ass other than cheap shots and other assorted kid games. Comments of substance will be allowed through :)"I'll just assume this means that mrsneutronsgarage's 'communication' skills don't rise above punk-ass cheap shots and rather lame attempts at stand-up comedy. So be it. I stopped expecting anything else awhile back. RIDDLE: When is a neutron not a particle?ANSWER: When it's a wave. Bye bye!Never bring a little pecker to a cockfight, MNG.
filrabat:Feel free to post your MNG reply here if you like. Knowing you, I doubt it warranted exclusion due to excess snidery. Or did you ask him if he 'cut himself?'.I see he's now posted an article on antinatalism where he extols the virtues of self-deception. It's actually well written. I enjoyed it. Well, I'm off to walk my pet sea serpent now, then off to work in my incredible edible flying machine as I appreciate the absurd wonder of the Japanese tsunami, IF I can get all those fucking crybabies I've seen on the news out of my head.
Thanks, Jim. I'll take up your offer.Reply to MNGYour comparison of humans to chickens would be amusing were it not taken so seriously by the sheeple out there. Even if we are animals too, humans also transcend animals too – meaning they have much more ability for forethought, long-term thinking, and much more sophisticated thinking in general than do chickens. If you’re going to do animal comparisons, then stick to our closest relatives – the great apes species of chimp, bonobo, gorillas, and orangutan (Actually, I’d rather you not do any animal comparisons at all because ultimately each species’ behavior is tailor made for that species alone, but if you’re going to make animal comparisons, then compare us with the other great apes out there – at least they’re our closest relatives). Not only is your chicken/human comparison sufficient to make me suspicious of the soundness of your thought process, it’s also insulting to humans. On a deeper level, you are describing what is called “Social Darwinism” – assuming that the “Darwininan Struggle” applying to animals is appropriate for human behavior. That’s based on a 19th century understanding of how evolution works, and a gross distortion of that understanding at that. BTW, Darwin didn’t come up with the idea and clearly said evolution was not intended to apply to inter-human relations; “survival of the fittest” itself was coined by Herbert Spencer, who saw in it a justification for the huge gaps in income and opportunity between the classes in Victorian Britain. Not surprisingly, he was popular among the upper classes, for he provided a ready-made, easy to comprehend justification for NOT doing anything to reduce the opportunity gap between the classes.
Thanks, filrabat, but I doubt we'll get any more out of MNG than the kind of specious bullshitting and general avoidance of saying anything substantive that we've seen so far. Still, I'll bet he thinks he's scoring points :) There's that lauded self-deception again. Meh.
Post a Comment