Kaitlyn

Would it be better if the poll's sample size for Blacks was more than 130? Absolutely. Albeit, the 130 was actually a good number to choose because Blacks are roughly 13% of the American population. But I find it disturbing that roughly 38/130 Blacks, probably picked randomly, don't think it's okay that my skin color is the color that it is, and another 38 weren't sure.

It means that it is not scientific as presented. Essentially they found 38 black people who said they disagree with the phrase "It's OK to be white".

Whether this means that they actually have a problem with white people, or as you put it they are "too stupid" to distinguish between the phrase and its social connotations, either way the actual lessons we can draw from this onto broader race relations and social dynamics are extremely limited or nonexistent.

Let's say 100% of the black people polled answered that yes, they agree with the statement "It's OK to be white." Now when some alt-right person is wearing a shirt that says "It's OK to be white" or is putting stickers up, they can use the defense, "I'm just advertising a phrase that 100% of black people agree with!"

A positive affirmation doesn't require a refutation of a negative, in order to exist.

That is logically true in general, but not as it applies to a phrase like this. People do not randomly go around saying everything that is OK. Nobody is putting up stickers saying "It's OK to eat a sandwich" or "It's OK to ride a bike."

To be honest I am even falling for it right now because the entire point of right wing memes like this is not to communicate anything but just to get people stuck in endless loops of explaining the most asinine things.

There are literal think tanks as well as organized groups of online trolls formulating these memes, planning them to have the maximum social gaslighting effect possible.

It creates endless debates precisely because of the difference between the explicit and the implicit meaning of the phrase. No matter how many times someone like me points out the implicit meaning, conservatives can just endlessly engage in denial, pointing to common sense and straightforward logic.

You're the one saying that White people aren't under attack. I think it's obvious that they are. 

When I say I don't see white people as under attack, of course someone somewhere can be writing against white people.

However, I see group selection as an outmoded theory, and so do not see races as separate evolutionary units with their own interests, inherent psychology, etc. To the extent that their interests are unified this occurs by circumstance. So, there might have been a "black interest" in abolishing slavery, to the extent that black people were unified by their oppression. However, there is no "white interest" or "white self-defense" in response to diversity, because diversity can enhance the spaces which it is introduced into. There is no need for self-defense in response to e.g. racial mixing, because it is a positive and voluntary act.

"Diversity" is functionally anti-White (because "diversity" isn't pushed into non-White countries without it being considered wholly negative). 

First, this presumes that diversity is inherently a bad thing. Diversity (in the modern form you are talking about) is primarily "pushed into" first-world, liberalised, modern capitalist countries, and so are mobile phones and the internet. However I would agree that diversity should be advocated everywhere.

China is dominated by Han Chinese, but no one is saying "too Han Chinese". Israel is dominated by Jews, but no one is saying "too Jewish". It's only a problem when White people become the majority of groups. 

People are absolutely criticizing those countries, in particular the ethnic cleansing which occurred in Israel. Are you suggesting that western countries should imitate the totalitarian style of paranoiac, regressive nationalism embodied by China and Israel?

If people claim that a university campus is "too White", should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

If people claim that a gifted-and-talented school is "too White", and thus needs to shut down, should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

No, because promoting diversity is not necessarily racial hatred.

For one thing, the poll included only 130 people, which is nowhere near enough to create a representative sample size.

And yet your "imagine" and "assume" arguments are acceptable to you with a sample size of ZERO. 

[No response]

Where is your response to this? Are White people allowed to defend themselves as a racial group?

No. Also I don't know what that means.

Lol.

I'll give you specific examples then.

If people claim that a university campus is "too White", should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

If people claim that a gifted-and-talented school is "too White", and thus needs to shut down, should White people be allowed to label that as racial hatred?

[No response]

Genghis Khan is a dreadful role model for people. Society really needs to evolve past its primal worship of barbarians and criminals.

In case you weren't aware, he reproduced with more women than any other male in history or at least any known one, it wasn't his barbaric nature that generally gets him the 'wow' factor.

Start explaining.

Lol, don’t 22 year old men own houses in your country? Or a least a hut?

Explain to us how your son afforded to buy a house (without a mortgage) all by himself, despite only just graduating and being 22.

Us? Who’s us? Are you with someone?

Proud fathers.

Maybe his son is Hunter Biden? He gets free houses too.

It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.

It is the parents' fault because they chose to bring the child into existence. We're not forced to have children. Parents are the ones imposing these risks on a future human.

Should I hold you morally accountable for going to work every day because you know that there is a chance someone could jump in front of your car you are aware that it's possible? You know it's a possibility, you know it's a small percentage, you still consistently do it every single day. How is this justifiable?

There's a clear difference in likelihood and imposition, but you know what?

It's not.

Let's bring a graceful end to human life so scenarios like this can't happen.

So, you don't believe it is right to kill but you do believe it is acceptable to discontinue the species. I find this idea quite interesting. It's not quite a genocide while at the same time it is the discontinuation of the species, it is truly a fascinating concept to think about.

Yes, it's certainly not something you'd stumble across in your day-to-day life.

It helps the argument get around a lot of nasty arguments involved planned genocide and things of that nature.

Anti-natalism is ultimately about reducing negative affect as much as humanly possible. That's why it avoids the whole genocide thing (because that would produce a whole bunch of seriously horrific negative affect).

It would only produce a seriously horrific negative effect if there was someone around to experience it.

I suppose if the humanity-ending genocide was instant, then yes. If not, people will experience negative affect until they die.

Even if it's instant, there are still moral issues ending people's lives prematurely. It's effectively murder and that has a lot of moral issue relating to it, even if the people involved don't experience negative affect.

I agree, it would be determined by whether people view imposing negativity on an innocent individual as evil or ending their life prematurely without any negative experience as Evil. It could be both.

I do see the moral problem of procreation, if some people are inevitably going to have more negative than positivity in their life and therefore by procreation, we are accepting the imposed negativity onto others however small the percentage nonetheless we are acting in a way we know will harm others by continuing the species. I do recognize this as a moral problem, while I also recognize the denial of life as a problem. I would like to discuss this further.

My stance is that I don't think we can accept the imposed negativity. 

I agree but I also don't believe it is justified against the denial of life. Ultimately, I believe that the continuation and deprivation of life is an immoral act, and I cannot easily identify one being more valid than the other.

Since negative affect is guaranteed but positive affect is only a possibility, it's probably better to have never been.

Perhaps this is true, and perhaps not. As I've been discussing with you my understanding and argument has changed dramatically as I have learned a lot from our discussion but regardless my current argument is that antinatalism is an immoral act as it imposes the consequences of a lonesome ending and destruction of the world as it rot slowly without people to fill the gaps that once were, and that we acknowledge the people who will be suffering those imposed consequences were not the ones who originally started life and therefore we would be punishing the innocent to save the innocent.

Now, since he realized his son is less accomplished than me (we're both 22), IwantRooseveltagain has gone dead quiet.

I responded. Let’s review.

You are a female

You are not American 

You live in a third world country

Your degree is from an inferior school that can’t compare to UCLA

You have a fat ass

You have definite body image issues

You were abused and abandoned by your father

You don’t know how to spell basic words like high school

You have a dead end job in “science” and make low wages

You are a proud racist 

You spend Saturdays all alone

Your expiration date is coming fast and you have no prospects

You may be accomplished in your little third world village but to think you compare to my son, don’t be ridiculous. 

He already owns a house with no mortgage.

I imagine you live in a teeny tiny shit hole apartment with roommates or you still live with your broken mother.

I believe that a certain level of restraint towards progression is what makes progression valuable, and that the friction towards one's goals isn't negative. If everything in life could be given at the snap of a finger, life would inevitably become boredom. This is why I value restraint as an aspect of life that can provide value through accomplishments. 

I think this shows that the goals we strive for are objectively worthless, and that it's the method in which we achieve them that produces positive affect through our subjective experience. So, this shows that the particular goals don't matter in the slightest (objectively), but the positive affect you can obtain from achieving any goal is where the real value is generated.

Yes, it is not the actual thing which we do but rather how we feel about doing it and how we feel about the result of the outcome that determines how we feel completing the thing.

Also, you're highlighting another zero-sum aspect of human nature: if we were given everything, then we'd still suffer negative affect (through boredom). However, if we encounter obstacles that prevent boredom, then we encounter negative affect through that instead.

I believe that you're speaking of objective value. I do not believe in any such thing as I've seen no evidence to support the idea that anything has an objective value. I understand that all things that are considered to have value are valued subjectively and the thing itself has no value, but the value is determined by the individual who perceives it. If you're speaking of objective value then I would agree that we are not able to obtain objective value, rather we create our own through subjective means.

If a person feels their life was more positive than negative, subjectively that person had a more positive life and therefore regardless of the circumstances they were in, their perception viewed it as more positive or negative. Meanwhile, their life may have been considered by many others a more negative life than a positive one.

Ultimately, it again proves that obstacles are not negative or positive but rather the individual subjectively determines whether or not the obstacle affects them negatively, neutrally, or positively. Therefore, the question of Anti-Natalism is a matter of subjective opinion, one individual may feel overall negative and therefore anti-natalism would be correct for that individual, while for another feels they can cope with life's challenges and therefore anti-natalism would be incorrect for that individual, there is no one size fits all.

You're just not thinking about the words you're typing.

For example, anyone who is raped in life experiences massive obstacles of (often life-long) trauma that is clearly severe negative affect. Nobody who is raped thinks, 'Great. This is an opportunity to overcome this obstacle and show that I have a mind of a conqueror'. It's just sheer nonsense to think that people who were raped don't have to experience negative affect.

You seem to think that any emotional reaction to events is purely a matter of choice, as if blowing a chunk out of someone's arm with a shotgun wouldn't immediately send them into shock. Total non-reality.

That would not be an obstacle but rather an evil, evil and tragedy are both different than obstacles. I believe I should draw the distinctions between them. An obstacle is something that is a challenge it usually is something that can be accomplished or overcome but it is sort of like a resistance to achieving one's goal.

Evil is something that is done by another with malevolence in the heart. It is not something that was meant to be but rather caused by another individual.

Tragedy is something that is or was inevitable by nature, it was caused by the universe and was not done so by one's will.

The tryouts to a sports event is an obstacle, so is the difficulty in obtaining the championship.

An individual that harms another before they go into that championship was not an obstacle but an evil.

The tsunami that wiped out their house while they were on vacation for the championship tryouts was a tragedy not an evil or an obstacle.

I think these examples are obstacles, and I'll show it's so with a definition:

Obstacle -- something that impedes progress or achievement Obstacle Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

The emotional trauma involved in rape would impede progress/achievement in everyday life. Therefore, it should count as an obstacle (as well as a tragedy).

An individual harming others before a race was an obstacle because they prevented others from achievement in the event.

A tsunami wiping out their house is an obstacle because they'd no doubt what to progress with their lives after their event, and their wiped-out house impedes that.

Tragedies are typically unavoidable and negative, obstacles impede progress or achievement, I agree that certain things can be both tragedies and obstacles by meeting the criteria for each.

Okay so you agree that tragedies can be obstacles, and that these are negative experiences (and thus produce negative affect).

Now, because an obstacle "impedes progress or achievement", that should produce negative affect because the person wants the goal, but eh obstacle is stopping it. Therefore, obstacles produce negative affect. 

That conclusion is not accurate, the reason being is the conclusion assumes all obstacles are tragedies, which has not been yet determined.

What can be said is I agree that the obstacles which are tragedies start with a negative effect and have the potential to be overcome with a positive. Meanwhile, the obstacles which aren't tragedies don't have to start with a negative.

You know, I have sometimes wondered if I was really truly dumb, ugly, riddled with genetic defects (prone to diabetes on top of cancer, allergies all of it), a midget and/or micropenisd so on and so forth... Let's say if I was solidly in 3 categories like that, would I be right to manipulate a female to reproduce with me and produce offspring that may have to experience the setbacks?

The reason I go to that extent is to say, yes I would risk it.

Why? Because fuck you that's my bloodline to hell with the logic.

It sounds irrational, I am blessed in some ways that I am not having to debate that at all, I am passing on my DNA only true issue that I worry is my innate social skills, I wonder things like  what my offspring will have holding them back, how autistic they may be, as it clearly is a dominant gene since I got the social issues primarily from my dad (he's a weird guy, not sure if he's autistic).

I'm not saying I have nothing else up with me, I have a ridiculously high metabolism that made me skinny as a stickman for periods of my life until I cracked certain intolerances I have but such medicine is miles ahead what it was when I was younger vs now even.

I never want to be genghis khan bullshit. It's nurture as much as nature, raise them to be legendary, love them if they're way below ordinary anyway. That's the motto.

I still don't agree all states are negative or positive, as I believe there is a negative state of being. But I do agree there are inevitably people whose lives are more negative than positive. Therefore, by continuing the species of human existence we willingly impose this on those individuals as a form of torturing the innocent.

Yeah this argument is potent enough and I don't know what the counter-argument to it should be. 

It becomes a matter of choosing one of the following:

We acknowledge that by continuing the species we know that however few certain individual's lives will be more negative than others and this is a form of torture to the innocent as they wouldn't wish to exist in such a life, and we imposed this upon them without allowing them to leave it (suicide is not permitted to even these individuals as a sense of "moral torture"). Meanwhile, we acknowledge in no circumstance is it justifiable to torture the innocent. Therefore, it is morally wrong to continue the species.

Alternatively, we believe it's morally acceptable to continue the species knowing however few that innocent individuals' lives will be more negative than others and how this is a form of torture, since if one's life is more negative than positive, they wouldn't wish to exist, and we impose this upon them. Therefore, in order to avoid the continuation of innocent people being tortured by lives that have more negativity than positivity we will enforce the discontinuation of the species through anti natalism. We acknowledge that by doing this many will suffer a lonely ending to existence and the economy and many of its sub parts will crumble into anarchy and a terrible ending to the world as less and less survive and manage to maintain society as it crumbles from beneath them. in this way the last survivors will be in a sense of torture and all of those who lived their lives even happily without any family that to them may have felt fulfilling. Ultimately, we acknowledge that it was not the people who will be suffering this lonely ending and destructive ending to society as it collapses with no one to fill the gaps as they once did. Therefore, this will be a sense of innocent torture of those who did not create the problem of an immoral existence and that by undoing the immoral torture we will be causing immoral torture. We also acknowledge it is not justifiable to solve evil with evil, and therefore it is unacceptable to torture the innocent as they were not the cause of the problem.

Though, perhaps it would be justifiably permissible as it would be a limited time of acting in an immoral sense but discontinuing the eternal immoral existence.

In essence, antenatalism is determined by a person's belief of whether it is justifiable to act in an evil way to destroy a greater evil.

But then a new problem arises on top of this one. The moment that we say it is permissible to act in an evil way to destroy an evil that is greater we are discussing the greater good. The greater good was used by Thanos, Ultron, and the Nazi's from their point of view. We most certainly acknowledge that we do not want to become them. Therefore, it cannot be justifiable to act in an evil way to destroy a greater evil. If it cannot be justifiable to act in an evil way by torturing the innocent by using enforced anti natalism which would inevitably cause ruin and destruction to the city of those who are the last people to survive as economy and jobs are lost and the city is in ruin as there are no more employees to continue running it and maintain it as it rots with those last survivors who may end up dying from disease and starvation. Therefore, in order to avoid using the greater good which is ending the eternal immoral existence by causing a limited time immoral act of anti-natalism there is no solution to avoiding the immoral act as the only solution to defeating the evil is with evil and as we will not use evil there is no solution but to maintain existence alongside it. 

Is he still bragging to strangers? Sheesh.

You can tell what accusations are true based on whether he responds to them or not.

I noticed you didn’t deny your father touched you and that it was something he never should have done. Perhaps it was ok with you then.

I see no denials here of your claims.

I live in a 1st world country as well 

If you lived in a country that wasn’t a shit hole you wouldn’t be too ashamed to reveal it.

I have beaten your son in claiming academic accolades.

You have a fictional degree from a nameless university. 

I've already had several years worth of real, paid working experience

You have stated you are 22. Now you are claiming you have been working for years. No one believes that bull shit. Although you likely worked in a bar to support your mother. 

 There’s no doubt your father beat your mother, had sex with you and then abandon you both to your shit hole third world country.

Now we know why you are childless. The damage was done by your father.

I'm 22, so that's literally impossible

Right, your “degree” from a Cracker Jack box. I know women typically lie about their age but you don’t need to do that yet. Not until you hit your expiration date.

My son has a real degree from a prestigious university. You live in a third world country where colleges are not accredited and people rely on aid from other countries.

I am not sure that either of you are good for the website on balance but that user is literally pure toxicity embodied. You need to contact the mods because the mods only react here if the victim themselves reports abuse, for reasons beyond me.

He's probably older than me, too.

No, that’s ridiculous. He just turned 22. He’ll have a PHD by the time he’s your age.

I'm nowhere near 30 lol.

You are in your twenties. 30 is just around the corner. You better put yourself out there. There’s not a lot of guys looking for a racist wife.

And the few there are make no money and are uneducated.

I answered your question, so it's only fair that you answer the same question.

Excuse? I don’t need an excuse because I’m a married 57 yo airline pilot. I’ve already made it.

My son graduated from UCLA yesterday and we had a big party.

That’s a school you could never hope to go to. 

Tomorrow I have to be at LAX at 5 in the morning. So I’ll be in bed early. Because I have a real job. Not a job in “science” in a shit hole third world country 

When I was your age, a young officer in the Marines, I was out every Saturday banging chicks in Pensacola or Orange County.

I have the flu. I have an actual excuse.

Ha, last week you said you were getting over the flu. You have the flu again? 

Yes, I re-contracted it.

What is your excuse again? Why are you always online when I log on, particularly on the last few Saturday nights?

[No response from IwantRooseveltagain]

They do not dislike what they have, they are glad to have the basic necessities of life including lack of hunger, fresh water, a roof over their head, etc. It is not that they are discontented that they have a house or that they dislike they have fresh water, it is that they are drawn to have more because it is a positive. Therefore, I don't believe having water is considered a negative state but rather a neutral one.

Initially, I think we can both agree that there is no dislike of what they have. 

I think where we disagree is that I believe people eventually become accustomed to what they have, and the 'new, shiny toy' luster wears off. That's when either boredom/new desire take hold and produce new negative affect.

Do you agree that boredom and desire produce negative affect?

Yes, I believe boredom does produce a negative effect, and that desire is capable of producing a negative effect.

I suppose the next question is: how quickly does one enter boredom, once one attains their goal? Is there immediate, slight boredom? Or does it require time?

If there is immediate boredom (negative affect), then that negative affect could be considered to be guaranteed before any progress (positive affect) is produced.

As I said, I agree that there is a negative effect in boredom as boredom is the mental state of discomfort. However, the slight boredom and negativity that precedes the realization of one's idea of progress if the idea of progress is well defined and an infinitely long path that could never be obtained but through progress achievements and positivity could be obtained than one's positivity through life could be much greater than the negativity they experienced when they 1st conceived the idea.

I have the flu. I have an actual excuse.

Ha, last week you said you were getting over the flu. You have the flu again? 

When you hit 30, you’ll have a better chance of getting killed by a terrorist than finding a husband 

It's about whether it's morally correct to have children.

A society based on this would be extinct, which is why we have natural instincts that could be classified as "immoral instincts" to override rational thought.

This would also bolster the claim that a society built on rational thought is not evolutionarily fit to survive.

Some individuals when they realize their potential, they become ecstatic about the possibilities in how their life could now unfold. I don't find any negativity in this, and being positivity is often or even occasional to follow, negativity can be but isn't always a predecessor of positivity.

Yes, there's a lot of positive affect that can result from self-actualization.

I could try a different angle: would you agree that the greater the difficulty in the self-actualizing activity, the greater the positive affect your body rewards you with?

I would agree in most cases, as it still depends on how the individual views themself and their progress.

Look who’s home all alone on another Saturday night.

I believe that there are three states of being consisting of negative, neutral, and positive; It is quite similar to the laws of electrical engineering. A person moves from the negative to the neutral because they dislike the negative circumstance, they can also move from the neutral to the positive because they like the positive.

I think what you're saying about the moving from neutral to positive could be theoretically correct, it's just never correct in regards to goals. 

Relating to goals, if a person puts no work into their goal, I do not believe they should be disappointed they have not achieved it, but I also believe that they should not be glad they have not achieved it. This is because nothing has been put in, and nothing has been given, I consider this a neutral state. Would you agree?

No, because people don't make goals in order to not achieve them. People make goals in order to, in their eyes, improve their life. When people realize that they're not improving their lives, or when they experience real world repercussions for not achieving their goal, more negative affect is produced.

Being in a state with unfulfilled goals produces negative affect, however small it is.

I believe the negative experience from not improving one's life is mainly due to the expectation of the individual. For many individuals improving one's life has been indoctrinated since birth and therefore the negative experience is still due to the mental state or expectation of the individual.

I think it's safe to say that this "expectation" is a product of a human's desire. Thus, due to desire producing negative affect, and humans naturally desiring, it can be said that human life naturally produces negative affect.

Yes, negative effect is a naturally occurring emotion produced by human life. Although, I don't quite see a correlation between expectation and desire.

I apologize if I did not receive the explanation you expressed (thoroughly) as you would have liked, as it still makes more sense to me that there is a neutral state of being. Therefore, I still view this desire as a neutral state of being that has the potential to go from neutral to either a negative or positive state of being.

His ideology would be even less known without the acts of terrorism. 

Firstly, the demarcation between rural and urban in the UK is not so distinct, there just simply isn't the room to isolate. Though for sure, certain ethnic groups and recent migrants  do tend to populate big  inner cities. Nonetheless migrants from the 1950'5 and 60's and their offspring have integrated well into British society.

Mistakes or not, decrying them is futile.

Global Society is merely a phrase that represents a planet with a human population  of approximately 8 billion. 

And I'm discussing this with you and my brain is coping well.  

Because technology has shrunk the World to the click of a key on a small device.

On the other hand, not having anything does not continue to make us have less and less in the sense that our stomach would, this is why it is not an accurate depiction.

It does continue to make us have "less and less" because failing to have goals complete is inherently negative (brings negative affect that ranges from slight annoyance, to irritation, to frustration, to depression), even if to a far lesser degree than being hungry or thirsty. People aren't in a neutral state when they fail to attain their goal of making it into Harvard. People aren't in a neutral state when after several years, their investments on the stock market fail to rise at all (assuming their goal is to make money).

This would depend on the person's perspective. Personally, I would be disappointed if I had invested my life savings into the stock market and it had not risen after many years. However, given the current situation with the stock market I would be glad if my stocks hadn't risen at all, as long as they didn't go down, I'd be glad. It depends on a person's perspective.

The specific time in the market doesn't matter, so let's blow that out to a full market cycle (7-10 years), wherein you'd expect your portfolio to do better.

Let's just assume, for sake of argument, that there isn't a 7-10 year long Great Depression.

Would seeing that your portfolio hasn't changed value in 7-10 years (i.e. made no progress) bring any kind of negative affect?

At some point, your perspective gets engulfed by reality, regardless of how positive you try to be.

I don't believe a stagnant portfolio in our economy is an accurate reflection of a neutral state. This is because the only reason a portfolio is negative is caused by inflation. If the economy had no inflation, then a stagnant portfolio wouldn't be a negative. The negative is caused when the value of your portfolio goes down because of inflation, so stagnation isn't a negative, depreciation is negative.

The positivity/negativity isn't in reference to the portfolio itself; rather, it's referring to the affect in a person's reaction to stagnation/depreciation (whatever you want to call it). I don't think there's a chance in hell anyone wouldn't be experiencing negative affect if they checked their stock portfolio after 10 years, only to find it hasn't budged.

This is a bit of a tangent; however, I will go into the details. The economy is increasing through inflation and therefore things lose value without moving up. If a person's finances or portfolio goes up at the exact same rate as the economy, they may have double the money in 10 years, but their value hasn't gone up at all. This is because their fraction of the economy has stayed the same size as it has increased at the same proportion as inflation.

If their portfolio grows faster than the economy their value has increased well if their portfolio has increased slower than the economy's inflation, then it has actually decreased in value even if the amount of money in their portfolio has increased. Therefore, if a person's finances doubles in 20 years it may be less than the economy's inflation and therefore worth less than it had been originally, but the individuals still feel satisfied and positive because they see it has grown. Thus, the positivity of a person's situation is determined by how they perceive the situation and how they emotionally feel.

I was hungry, but it wasn't quite negative, I would do it again if we had such a delicious big meal to have for dinner.

If hunger produced positive affect, we wouldn't be urged to eat when we enter it.

It's fine to say that you weren't starving, and therefore the negative affect wasn't that bad, but everyone wants to escape hunger.

What I'm trying to say is that it is our hunger that allows us to enjoy food. Therefore, I don't believe that hunger itself is a negative but rather the absence of food which is a basic necessity of life. As I've said before anything below the basic necessity of life is considered negative having the basic necessities of life is neutral and having an abundance or surplus of the basic necessities of life is a positive and those very dependent on an individual's perspective.

I'm not basing my argument about whether something is "positive" or "negative". I'm talking about whether the affect (i.e. feelings, emotions, whatever you want to call it) is negative or positive. I'm talking specifically about affect because my argument is grounded in it (negative affect is bad; positive affect is good).

I don't believe that the feeling of hunger itself is negative or positive, rather it just is. Hunger can be used for good such as enjoying a delicious Thanksgiving dinner and hunger can be used for evil such as starving captives of war.

I don't think anyone on the planet enjoys being hungry, particularly at greatest starvation depths. The good is only coming in satisfying the hunger, not in the presence of it.

I really think that hunger producing negative affect is axiomatic. I think you could make better counterarguments to my claims that boredom and desire are negative.

The same could be said for a hammer, a hammer could be used to murder someone, or a hammer could be used to build a house. I don't believe the hammer is good or evil but rather just is and can be used for both ways.

Having a hammer isn't by default unenjoyable like hunger, so I don't think this analogy lines up.

I see the discrepancy you pointed out. I suppose it is more like a person being forced to use a hammer. They must choose between using the hammer to build or to destroy, they cannot avoid using it. Just because someone is forced to use the hammer does not make the hammer good or bad. In the same way, we are unwillingly made hungry by the absence of food, and we can use this both ways.

I do acknowledge that there are certain people whose lives are going to be more negative than positive and that by continuing life we are imposing the negativity that can be viewed as torture on those few individuals which are nonetheless innocent human beings. Though I'm not certain it justifies taking away the people who are alive today who could have had families and loved ones and imposing upon them a lonesome ending to existence without their consent. Ultimately, I recognize the continuation of human existence as an immoral act but also the act of removing humanity from existence and I'm not sure which one if either justifies the other.

That's actually quite a tough point to address, partly because I haven't thought of it before.

I think depriving of current people of procreation isn't immoral because bringing people into existence would be considered immoral. Another way of saying it is this: it's not moral to experience pleasure at the expense of others.

I agree, it's not moral to experience pleasure at the expense of others. Meanwhile, it is not the individuals who are going to suffer the fate of a lonesome ending that have imposed immoral acts onto others who will suffer, but rather their predecessors. Therefore, the individuals who will suffer a lonesome ending to existence will be paying the price of their predecessors imposed immoral acts.

We also know that it is wrong to take an innocent human being who did not ask to exist to then suffer the consequences of a lonesome ending because of their predecessor in order to justify the immoral act caused by the predecessor. Ultimately, the act of enforcing anti natalism could be seen as an act of injustice as we are trying to rectify the immoral act of the predecessor by imposing a consequence on the innocent.

Time period is any stage where natural selection was still occurring.

Putin is also impossible to criticise and mock in Russia. Asians, as in East Asians, were historically the most truly vicious ethnicity-group of those prevalent today. The extent of pillaging, rape and psychopathic slavery actually outs what happened in US to shame in terms of breadth and duration of the evil. Search how Japanese Shogun or Mongol Empire ruled and conquered.

I will however drop this tyrant angle, it is clear what I am referring to is easily misunderstood as referring to tendency towards tyranny instead of nationwide embracing vs opposing of tyranny when tyranny occurs.

The time period, to be clear, was even happening past ice age. There is, consequently, a reason why Scandinavia has the most left wing liberal hippy dippy populace today, in the whole world. The key is NOT solely cold or eastern Europe would be it too. It is something deeper that my theory has not cracked yet.

I cannot pinpoint why Russia and Eastern Europe seemed to backfire and be very prone to aggression and impulsive brutality. There must be something more to it. It is a working theory, not a complete solved conclusion.

I have had a larger theory about difference in certain ethnicities' behaviours and the environment they evolved in being linked but specifically relevant to this discussion is caucasians and travelling as well as passivity.

If you evolved in colder (actually straight up icy for a large enough period) environment, you very quickly had to gang up on violent people or push them away to perish alone in the cold (thus die off, not run off and fuck many women or meet a beastly man at random). This means that over time, it is likely that caucasians and similarly inuits and more northern American (as in Canada and very north part of US) had ensured that the most impulsively violent amongst themselves were minimised over time whereas other cultures probably had them spread the furthest and widest because it's not as instinctive or straightforward in the earlier stages of evolution to justify ganging up on a particularly strong and violent individual if it's open-plain and you don't naturally have the weapons (the weapons used to hunt mammoths etc were perfect for handling gang-up sitations vs a beastly violent individual).

Due to the sheer cold, 'sticking together' was forced, not optional, to maintain good body temperature and stay alive as well as defend the young. This is probably also why white people developed the high 'political intelligence' that is prevalent even today, since you just had to force that to be a trait that was important and selected for when living in close quarters.

This isn't just about literal heat though. There is more to it. It's about the way that colder climates make you feel you need to huddle together. In climates where it was easy to roam alone or in pairs for a long while, a very violent individual would likely, when ambushed or 'exiled' just accept it after defeated and walk off and survive and then meet and rape others, passing on genes.

Of course, I can be talking total nonsense, perhaps what I said is true for caucasians in colder climates ended up a common reason humans were sociable and the most capable species of teamwork but I have a feeling it may explain the headstart they had, the climate forced them to not only work better together but led to those that couldn't 'keep the peace' to perish, as in their bloodline dying out not just themselves.

If you look at what caucasian cultures are so ridiculously strong at that keeps them 'running the world' it is not 'intelligence', the Asians in particular equal them if not surpass them in this. It is collaborative political maneuvring. I am talking about trends, it also does backfire since people like Hitler, Putin, Stalin, Mussolini and other such dictators end up capable of far more severe damage than tyrants of other ethnicities in other cultures due to the fact caucasians are as a society more open to just socialise and get by with a new maniac in charge, rather than instantly jump to fight them out of power from within they sooner go to war for them on scale/extend that is nationwide in the breadth of obedience and fear that is not quite the same for other tyrants.

Thing is, global technology does away with the need for importation. A lot of crappy jobs can be done elsewhere now.

Modern migration is largely  as a result of modern ideological conflict and protection of global interests. That is to say people seeking security just as much as seeking crappy jobs.

Though a lot of the USA's domestic crap is done by people from south of the border, many of whom have European ancestry and therefore inherited whiteness as you might put it.

To try and now decry and regret the old exploratory endeavours of our ancestors is a tad futile. To a large extent we were the architects of the modern global society,  so "racial" isolation is now also a tad futile.

We started making our bed hundreds of years ago, but some people are still not prepared to sleep in it. Not necessarily because others are crappy, but simply because we perceive physiological differences and feel threatened.

Though as I suggested previously to you, not so much in the U.K.......There was far less room to hide from those crappy looking people.

Therefore, if a person feels the work put into conceiving an idea should get no progress towards the goal than there will be no negative effect, while if they believe the effort of conception should be rewarded by progress towards an idea then they will feel disappointed. I'm trying to demonstrate how negative effect from lack of accomplishment towards a goal is dependent on the person's mentality of what they believe they deserve or should have received rather than their actual accomplishment, progress, or effort put into the goal.

Work naturally produces negative affect in itself through the physical exertion and desire. Both of those exists regardless of the mentality the person has. 

I was going to say that working with no expectation of progress isn't a real thing, but I guess people tinker and play around with things sometimes, and I guess that qualifies as work.

I don't believe that physical exertion is a form of negative effect, this is because negative effects are experienced emotionally and not through physical effort. It is possible through physical means that a person feels negative, but it is not the effort or physical aspect of the situation that makes it a negative but rather the emotional aspect.

I believe the resolution to the problem is to have genetic engineers continue the species and completely restrict unauthorized sex. This would limit only individuals who are sure to be intelligent and successful participants of society to be brought into existence, and they could be immune to almost every disease and illness, not to mention they would be almost perfectly designed so it would be impossible for any of them to die from a miscarriage.

I actually really like this idea lol :)

It is this way the species could continue while maintaining a less tragic existence for all individuals. Additionally, with advancing technology we could prevent even more deaths from natural disasters, and we could implement insurance covered by taxes that would ensure people don't lose their material assets due to tragedies. We could even engineer individuals so that everyone would be happy with their role in society.

Yep, sounds great!

Have you read Brave New World by Aldous Huxley?

No, but I've read the Cliff Notes:

-- I don't like the quasi-religious worship of Ford. I think humans need to evolve past religion

-- I like the idea of governments genetically testing people at birth to see which work would be suit them. It would prevent many lost souls

-- I think the hyper-conformist nature does have issues. I think it's quite Asian and a lot of the other races wouldn't go along with it. I also wouldn't like it if it was headed by a human, because that will 100% lead to corruption

-- I think the concept of happy pills (Soma) is generally a good idea, unless there is a genuine problem. Whilst not in the book, I'm very much a fan of things like wireheads or super drugs that boost moods, so long as the side-effects are negative (or too negative)

I'm not quite sure how I feel about this idea, regardless, it is the solution to the problem. What are your thoughts?

I think it would be a massive improvement for humanity. 

I agree it would be a massive improvement for humanity. I also agree that religion has its place in society and there was a time when it was needed but I also believe that in the future and as we progress in life that it is becoming less and less necessary as we better understand the world through science and need less of a mythological understanding of the world through metaphors and personified deities that represent ideas and concepts of the world as we have once used.

I agree that many people in the modern day would not like this hyper-conformist solution. I believe it is because of their attachment to their idea that they believe they are autonomous and unpredictable individuals who are capable of free will and not able to be contained. It would prove them incorrect, and they would very much dislike seeing this happen. I believe that Free Will is someone being free to do their Will. Therefore, if an individual's Will is restricted, they are free to do their Will and predictable at the same time. Ultimately, I believe this to be a reasonable solution and a futuristic society where everyone is happy with what they have and their lives are much more positive than negative as positivity is not based on the objective surroundings of the individual but rather how they feel which can be engineered through their genetic makeup.

It is certain that looking back from an adult standpoint of the infant they would be disappointed possibly even angry with the concept of life that they got the unlucky small percentage, but this is not the child or the parent's fault but rather a tragedy of life, And I believe the child again with a positive lens of life would have been willing to take the risk.

It is the parents' fault because they chose to bring the child into existence. We're not forced to have children. Parents are the ones imposing these risks on a future human.

Should I hold you morally accountable for going to work every day because you know that there is a chance someone could jump in front of your car you are aware that it's possible? You know it's a possibility, you know it's a small percentage, you still consistently do it every single day. How is this justifiable?

There's a clear difference in likelihood and imposition, but you know what?

It's not.

Let's bring a graceful end to human life so scenarios like this can't happen.

So, you don't believe it is right to kill but you do believe it is acceptable to discontinue the species. I find this idea quite interesting. It's not quite a genocide while at the same time it is the discontinuation of the species, it is truly a fascinating concept to think about.

Yes, it's certainly not something you'd stumble across in your day-to-day life.

It helps the argument get around a lot of nasty arguments involved planned genocide and things of that nature.

Anti-natalism is ultimately about reducing negative affect as much as humanly possible. That's why it avoids the whole genocide thing (because that would produce a whole bunch of seriously horrific negative affect).

It would only produce a seriously horrific negative effect if there was someone around to experience it.

I do see the moral problem of procreation, if some people are inevitably going to have more negative than positivity in their life and therefore by procreation, we are accepting the imposed negativity onto others however small the percentage nonetheless we are acting in a way we know will harm others by continuing the species. I do recognize this as a moral problem, while I also recognize the denial of life as a problem. I would like to discuss this further.

My stance is that I don't think we can accept the imposed negativity. 

I agree but I also don't believe it is justified against the denial of life. Ultimately, I believe that the continuation and deprivation of life is an immoral act, and I cannot easily identify one being more valid than the other.

I must agree that certain obstacles are less of a challenge to overcome and more of a tragedy of life. Such as your example of an infant dying from heart disease right after birth. However for most individuals this is not the case and I still believe that if the child and parents were unaware that this would happen the child would have wanted to take the chance of being the majority who don't get the disease and potentially if raised properly view life through a positive lens and therefore live a happy life.

It's possible that some people would want to take the chance, but we don't know for sure because there is no consent (my OP's argument 2). So, you're just gambling with someone's life without asking them first.

There's plenty of other horrible things that can go wrong in life, particularly towards the backend of life. Various cancers are quite common and often devastating. Chronic illnesses can pop up, too. It's not just dying from heart disease in infancy that is the only serious problem. The chances of you making it through life without something terrible happening can't be too high (and you're guaranteed to die at the end, too).

Also, unless you think that 100% of people would be fine taking this gamble, you're imposing this gamble on people without their consent *and* without thinking they would accept it -- that's morally problematic.

You mention 100% of people must be willing to accept it, what if 99% of people would have been grateful and experienced a good life. Are you to say that we are to deny those 99% of people the chance or human right to experience life? It's a give and take, you argue it's wrong to bring a person into existence if there is an even a small chance they will dislike it, but you don't mention about denying the many people who would have been grateful and glad to have it. How is this justifiable without their consent for the denial of life?

Do you think it's morally acceptable to torture 1% of people for the benefit of the 99%?

If yes, what about torturing 20%? Or 50%? Or 99%?

No, I don't, you point out exactly what I would like to address. I believe most would agree it is morally wrong to torture even just 1% without their consent. I also believe most people would agree it is morally wrong to deny people the benefits of life without their consent. I would like to discuss what we should do in order to handle this situation.

Are we to deny all people life because some people, however few, do not live an ideal life?

Are we to impose the inevitable tragedy upon that small percentage in order to benefit the majority?

I don't like either of these choices, and how does one choice trump the other?

It's not that these people, "do not live an ideal life." It's that it's torturous living it. If it was only them not living an ideal life, I think I would it's morally excusable. 

I don't think it would be moral to impose the inevitable tragedy on a few, hence I think that would affirm my anti-natalist sentiments. I made that choice because I think the avoidance of harm is far more valuable than experience of pleasure, and I showed this (to some extent) in my 1b argument from the OP.

Who determines which life is torturous and another non-ideal?

I could make a great argument that a person in the future living a better life than the best person today could consider it torturous.

This is the same MSNBC anchor who pushed a lie that Pfizer's Vaccine would prevent you from getting Covid on to half of the radical left USA.

Ultimately, it again proves that obstacles are not negative or positive but rather the individual subjectively determines whether or not the obstacle affects them negatively, neutrally, or positively. Therefore, the question of Anti-Natalism is a matter of subjective opinion, one individual may feel overall negative and therefore anti-natalism would be correct for that individual, while for another feels they can cope with life's challenges and therefore anti-natalism would be incorrect for that individual, there is no one size fits all.

You're just not thinking about the words you're typing.

For example, anyone who is raped in life experiences massive obstacles of (often life-long) trauma that is clearly severe negative affect. Nobody who is raped thinks, 'Great. This is an opportunity to overcome this obstacle and show that I have a mind of a conqueror'. It's just sheer nonsense to think that people who were raped don't have to experience negative affect.

You seem to think that any emotional reaction to events is purely a matter of choice, as if blowing a chunk out of someone's arm with a shotgun wouldn't immediately send them into shock. Total non-reality.

That would not be an obstacle but rather an evil, evil and tragedy are both different than obstacles. I believe I should draw the distinctions between them. An obstacle is something that is a challenge it usually is something that can be accomplished or overcome but it is sort of like a resistance to achieving one's goal.

Evil is something that is done by another with malevolence in the heart. It is not something that was meant to be but rather caused by another individual.

Tragedy is something that is or was inevitable by nature, it was caused by the universe and was not done so by one's will.

The tryouts to a sports event is an obstacle, so is the difficulty in obtaining the championship.

An individual that harms another before they go into that championship was not an obstacle but an evil.

The tsunami that wiped out their house while they were on vacation for the championship tryouts was a tragedy not an evil or an obstacle.

I think these examples are obstacles, and I'll show it's so with a definition:

Obstacle -- something that impedes progress or achievement Obstacle Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

The emotional trauma involved in rape would impede progress/achievement in everyday life. Therefore, it should count as an obstacle (as well as a tragedy).

An individual harming others before a race was an obstacle because they prevented others from achievement in the event.

A tsunami wiping out their house is an obstacle because they'd no doubt what to progress with their lives after their event, and their wiped-out house impedes that.

Tragedies are typically unavoidable and negative, obstacles impede progress or achievement, I agree that certain things can be both tragedies and obstacles by meeting the criteria for each.

I believe that a certain level of restraint towards progression is what makes progression valuable, and that the friction towards one's goals isn't negative. If everything in life could be given at the snap of a finger, life would inevitably become boredom. This is why I value restraint as an aspect of life that can provide value through accomplishments. 

Why bring your mother into this SubTeach?

I already read your explanation and I think it's nonsense. You can't directly quote or show why the poll is faulty (because it's a simple, straightforward poll)

For one thing, the poll included only 130 people, which is nowhere near enough to create a representative sample size.

Also, the poll is behind a paywall so I am limited into how far I can look into it

but it is from a source with a reputation and history of being biased.

As I have explained previously, the wording of the poll is also loaded. As another example, if we asked a group of conservatives "are you an antifascist?" or asked, "are you opposed to fascism?" we could imagine that the former question would get lower results, because it is a loaded term. Of course, the conservatives may prefer to give a more nuanced answer like, "Yes I am anti-fascist in the sense of being opposed to fascism, but I am also opposed to the movement that calls itself antifascist." However, given only two choices they may respond "No." A leftist could then use the same poll to claim, either that there is wide support for antifa, or that fascism itself is widespread amongst conservatives.

so you make up some "subtext" nonsense that comes out of nowhere.

Of course there is subtext, if you say "It's OK to be white" then that implies that there is some opposite sentiment that it is responding to. That is the manipulation of the statement. If we disagree with it then we are part of the "attack on white people." If we agree with it then we are signing off on a phrase that implies that there is an attack on white people.

You say that you disagree that White people are under attack, I give you a thread wherein there's a list of the various ways White people are under attack (not necessarily physical assault, by anti-White sentiment), and you just drop the point completely.

I can read through that thread separately and try to respond, but it is a different topic. If whether or not white people are under attack has bearing on whether we agree with the "It's OK to be white" meme, then my point is already made.

As for the thread, we could call for diversity and that is not necessarily anti-white. Calling something "too white" isn't a phrase I would use, but it could be complaining that a space is dominated by only a single race, rather than having a diversity of perspectives.

Where is your response to this? Are White people allowed to defend themselves as a racial group?

No. Also I don't know what that means.

I'm not actually an anti-natalist, so I can't believe this. However, I think this would be a reasonable position for an anti-natalist to take, and if I were to become one, I'd take this position. 

Being you have such a firm grasp on the logistics of the concept, why wouldn't you be an anti-natalist?

I still don't agree all states are negative or positive, as I believe there is a negative state of being. But I do agree there are inevitably people whose lives are more negative than positive. Therefore, by continuing the species of human existence we willingly impose this on those individuals as a form of torturing the innocent.