Why it is wrong for humans to breed

[Sunflowers]

you know for someone who claims to be educated in philosophy, you don't seem very good at debating it.

Er, you haven't even attempted to debate the matter with me, so how would you know? Without reading the OP you just ignorantly expressed your opinion about who should breed. You offered no defence and did not show how what you said had anything to do with the arguments in the OP. You'd get a failing grade if I was marking your paper.

Good, honest philosophers would never think so highly of themselves. How could someone like you, who claims to be an authority on philosophy, forget about Socrates already?

the only good honest philosopher you know - and that's stretching 'know' somewhat - is me. So deal.

I already have in the posts you made to me. I'm waiting for you to respond to mine.

No, you really haven't. I can't respond to farts.

[Red]

Er, you haven't even attempted to debate the matter with me, so how would you know?

I pointed you in the direc- you know what, nevermind, you're not gonna listen.

Without reading the OP you just ignorantly expressed your opinion about who should breed.

Because I feel my position is better expressed in the posts I linked.

You offered no defence and did not show how what you said had anything to do with the arguments in the OP.

You don't seem worth arguing with.

You'd get a failing grade if I was marking your paper.

I bet you're one of those people who would only give good marks on papers that agreed with you, or disagreed in a way you like.

the only good honest philosopher you know - and that's stretching 'know' somewhat - is me. So deal.

WOW. And I thought Teo was arrogant. Come on, do you even think before you say anything? Do you not understand how pompous this makes you sound?

Are you really assuming yourself to be a better Philosopher than Socrates, Locke, Bostrom, Singer, Nietzsche, Wollstonecraft, Arendt, Bacon, Wittgenstein, etc.?

Unless you mean personally, in which case, no. You are not by any means. You have to a Philosopher first if all.

Adding in babble to make an argument seem philosophical doesn't make it so. Once you label yourself like the way you did, I don't think anything will change your mind.

I don't think any Philsopher would be so petulant to argue about shit like this with some kid on a forum. It's pretty sad.

No, you really haven't. I can't respond to farts.

Excuse me? You've been shitting in everyone's face this whole time.

Please, stop assuming yourself to be of such a high intellect that the rest of us are mere flies compared to you. It's a little frustrating, and insulting to actual philosophers.

Wait, are you David Benatar?

[Sunflowers]

Er, you haven't even attempted to debate the matter with me, so how would you know?

I pointed you in the direc- you know what, nevermind, you're not gonna listen.

Correct. Put things in your own words, then I'll read them. Again if, in an essay, all you do is present quotes, you'd fail. So, grow a brain, turn it on, and try using it.

Are you really assuming yourself to be a better Philosopher than Socrates, Locke, Bostrom, Singer, Nietzsche, Wollstonecraft, Arendt, Bacon, Wittgenstein, etc.?

Again, you're not that bright are you? No, I didn't make that assumption. First, there's an ambiguity over whether I was saying I am a good person who is a philosopher, or a person who is a good philosopher. Second, even if I was calling myself a good philosopher, it would not follow that I was thereby assuming I am better than Socrates or Locke (it's a bizarre list, incidentally - 'Bostrom??' ).

I don't think any Philsopher would be so petulant to argue about shit like this with some kid on a forum. It's pretty sad.

I don't think this rises to the level of an argument. I mean, you haven't argued anything. I'm just suffering a fool. And as for it being 'sad' - well, you mentioned Socrates earlier, and 'this' is exactly what he spent most of his time doing. Anyway, it has its uses.

[Red]

Correct. Put things in your own words, then I'll read them. Again if, in an essay, all you do is present quotes, you'd fail. So, grow a brain, turn it on, and try using it.

Is this an essay? No, it's an internet debate. It doesn't matter whether the arguments I am presenting are in my words or someone else's; there are arguments I am presenting, whether or not they're coming from my mouth or not, they are still things I want you to address. Why can't you grasp this?

Seriously, how can you have any friends? You never listen to anyone else, and always want people to play by your rules.

Are you really assuming yourself to be a better Philosopher than Socrates, Locke, Bostrom, Singer, Nietzsche, Wollstonecraft, Arendt, Bacon, Wittgenstein, etc.?

Again, you're not that bright are you? No, I didn't make that assumption.

It was heavily implied. I'm sure you believe that deep down.

'The only good philosopher you know.'
I don't think many people would blame me for interpreting it the way I did.

I even added clarification if you meant it more on a personal level (which, again, you are not).

First, there's an ambiguity over whether I was saying I am a good person who is a philosopher, or a person who is a good philosopher.

You are neither. Even then, I'm granting that you're a philosopher, which is a joke in the extreme.

Second, even if I was calling myself a good philosopher,

You did though.

it would not follow that I was thereby assuming I am better than Socrates or Locke.

You said "the only good honest philosopher you know"
If you didn't mean every philosopher I knew, you should have said 'will met.'

It's still an immensely arrogant thing to say.

(it's a bizarre list, incidentally - 'Bostrom??' ).

I don't fully agree with everything Bostrom says, but he has a lot of interesting ideas.

I don't think this rises to the level of an argument. I mean, you haven't argued anything.

Interpret however you like, doesn't change the fact you're wasting all this time.

I'm just suffering a fool.

Wow, we actually had the same thought.

Ew...

And as for it being 'sad' - well, you mentioned Socrates earlier, and 'this' is exactly what he spent most of his time doing. Anyway, it has its uses.

But Socrates would probably have been in the right when he argued in cases like this. Unlike some people.

[Not The Real JReg]

@Sunflowers @Red I think that you guys need to kill the tension and go and have some angry sex with eachother.

[Sunflowers]

Is this an essay? No, it's an internet debate. It doesn't matter whether the arguments I am presenting are in my words or someone else's; there are arguments I am presenting, whether or not they're coming from my mouth or not, they are still things I want you to address. Why can't you grasp this?

Seriously, how can you have any friends? You never listen to anyone else, and always want people to play by your rules.

You seem obsessed with my social life. Be assured that it is fine. I think the mistakes you're making are these: you're assuming that because you don't like me, others don't like me (a common mistake among idiots and narcissists). You're also assuming - stupidly - that this is the real me and not a persona.

It's still an immensely arrogant thing to say.

I don't think you grasp the concept of arrogance. First, I've said things that imply I am a professional philosopher. This is the internet, of course, so don't be too sure I am. But let's - for the sake of argument - assume that it is true. Well, do you know how hard it is to be one of those? Really, really, really, really, really hard. The competition is unbelievable. So, if I am a professional philosopher then chances are I'm pretty good at philosophy, because that's the absolute minimum you need to even be in with a chance of securing a position.

Is it arrogant to believe you are good at philosophy if all the evidence indicates that you are? I mean, is it arrogant of a doctor to think he/she knows more about how the human body works than you do? No, of course not. Is it arrogant of a mechanic to think that he/she knows far more about how cars work than you do? No, of course not. And is it arrogant of either the doctor or the mechanic to point out to some utter fool who knows next to nothing about either the human body or cars but who is nevertheless utterly convinced that they do, that they are an ignorant, arrogant, fool? No, of course not.

You're the arrogant one. You think you know things you do not know. You think you know more than I do about the topic of this thread, yes? You expressed your own stupid, undefended view without having read the OP. You have argued precisely nothing (which is not something someone who can argue typically does). Yet you are confident that I am a fool and you wise, yes? You -you - are the arrogant one. The problem is you're arrogant 'and' ignorant - and so your ignorance is going to prevent you from realizing just how spectacularly arrogant you are.

I don't think this rises to the level of an argument. I mean, you haven't argued anything.

Interpret however you like, doesn't change the fact you're wasting all this time.

Like I say, I don't consider this a waste of time. It has its uses, believe me. Plus I'm supposed to 'engage with the community'. Not sure why. But, well, I'm supposed to engage with them. I consider you a representative of the community. I'm engaging with you. So there.

And as for it being 'sad' - well, you mentioned Socrates earlier, and 'this' is exactly what he spent most of his time doing. Anyway, it has its uses.

But Socrates would probably have been in the right when he argued in cases like this. Unlike some people.

You seriously think Socrates would be any nicer to you than I'm being?

[Sunflowers]

@Sunflowers @Red I think that you guys need to kill the tension and go and have some angry sex with eachother.

I think someone - anyone - needs to engage with an argument in the OP.

[Not The Real JReg]

@Sunflowers @Red I think that you guys need to kill the tension and go and have some angry sex with eachother.

I think someone - anyone - needs to engage with an argument in the OP.

I think that you majored in Flood Geology, Baraminology, Anarchist Economics, Ufology, and Parapsychology and minored in Dukakisology.

[Sunflowers]

@Sunflowers @Red I think that you guys need to kill the tension and go and have some angry sex with eachother.

I think someone - anyone - needs to engage with an argument in the OP.

I think that you majored in Flood Geology, Baraminology, Anarchist Economics, Ufology, and Parapsychology and minored in Dukakisology.

And that would be false, wouldn't it. I think you have a PhD in Wank.

[brimstoneSalad]

So, is there anyone who wants properly to address an argument in the OP? That is, is there anyone who wants actually to do some philosophy, as opposed to talking about philosophy?

I am a philosopher and would be very happy to rebut any arguments you have to make about whether it is wrong for humans to breed.

Here's a helpful reference for the consent argument: wiki/index.php/Antinatalism#Consent_to_Exist