Read the fucking article. It’s a different ABC.

So a live feed?

I need one for my son! And one for me…

So what’re your thoughts now we know it was a far right extremist aka goyper who shot CK for not being far enough to the right?

Oh that’s right all you snivelling right wing lunatics crawled back under your rocks.

In what way is it a fediverse issue that the OP is too stupid to use the NSFW tag when posting?

They fought a war against an opposing army, not by assassinating people exercising their right to discuss opinions and ideas

Of course it’s morally superior to kill a conscript (the British army was largely comprised of conscripts) than it is to kill a propagandist who advocates for political violence. /s

In fact they fought FOR the right to have opinions and ideas and to express them.

Utter rubbish. The war was instigated over matters of taxation and trade.

They thought it was so important to protect that right, that they put it into the bill of rights

It was so important that it was left out of the Constitution and had to be submitted as a bill to amend the Constitution.

Hardly sounds like the defining cause of the rebellion if they forgot to put it in their foundational document the first time around.

What’s wrong with the example? The revolutionaries killed until they were able to establish a democracy, directly refuting your claim.

You claimed it is impossible to murder your way into democracy, I gave you an example of people murdering their way into democracy.

Shifting the goalposts to be about ‘muh freeze peaches’ is weak.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolution

Facts don’t care about your feelings.

I have never seen a person get shot in person (I’ve seen those videos too) but I have hunted pigs and kangaroos, bullet wounds really aren’t portrayed well in media.

What’s funny to me is that American conservatives will argue that you can’t have guns in Australia. You can. We have guns and… no school shootings. No politicians being assassinated.

Charlie Kirk spouted all kinds of bullshit about my country. I’m very happy he won’t be doing that anymore.

I’m not moving any goalposts, my responses are keeping in mind the original arguments of antinatalism, that sufferring is inevtiable and that all sufferring should be avoided.

The oldest writing on this (that I am aware of) is Sophocles’s Oedipus at Colonus, written shortly before Sophocles’s death in 406 BC:

Not to be born is, beyond all estimation, best; but when a man has seen the light of day, this is next best by far, that with utmost speed he should go back from where he came. For when he has seen youth go by, with its easy merry-making, what hard affliction is foreign to him, what suffering does he not know? Envy, factions, strife, battles, and murders. Last of all falls to his lot old age, blamed, weak, unsociable, friendless, wherein dwells every misery among miseries

Look at the examples given, something as simple as envy being defined as sufferring. Loneliness in old age? This doesn’t seem to match how you are defining sufferring, and so our approaches differ.

suffering is something you cannot escape and that you do not choose, not something that’s difficult or temporarily painful

Torture is temporarily painful and we all agree that’s sufferring and not something you would choose.

Relationship breakups, especially one you didn’t choose to end, can be difficult but many people would agree that they sufferred during and after a breakup.

The premise is that sufferring is an inevitablility which you seem to agree with but sufferring as you’re defining it doesn’t seem to be a guaranteed experience.

You could conceivably live your entire life and never experience something that you cannot escape and that you do not choose, not something that’s difficult or temporarily painful. You could even choose a peaceful death to wrap up your sufferring free life with the way you’ve defined sufferring, even if it’s still unlikely it is a possibility, which goes against the original antinatalist claim that sufferring is inevitable.

Obviously sufferring comes in degrees of severity. I would never agree that not being born would be better than going through a breakup, or that its a moral imperative not to create new life because they might experience relationship difficulties.

However I would agree never being born would be preferrable to the death suffered by Hisaschi Ouchi, who was kept alive for as long as possible against his wishes so that doctors could study how extreme radiation poisoning would progress.

Personally I don’t want children for a number of reasons

I respect that and have zero interest in your reasons, it is your choice.

boiling it down to a moral reason is reductive, unhelpful, and can be dangerous.

It can certainly be dangerous, and I volunteered to moderate a space for discussion on the topic to try and mitigate some of that danger. To, potentially, reduce sufferring ;)

Nicotine withdrawal does not kill.

But the premise is that the suffering is a certainty, which the suffering we’re seeing in Gaza is absolutely not a certainty for everyone who is born.

The risk of suffering something unbearable is lower now than at any time in history and will hopefully only get lower.

It is possible to hold the view that having children can be a good thing and that people should be free to choose for themselves. They aren’t conflicting beliefs.

Not suffering is always preferable to suffering.

Is it? I prefer suffering the aches and pains of exercise knowing that caring for my body will reward me in the long term.

The definition of suffering we’re working with here is very broad. Not all suffering is pointless, unbearable or even involuntary.

People so afraid of suffering they would rather not ever have existed lack resilience.

that’s a bizarre logic that feels an awful lot like some fundamentalist Christian quiverfull shit.

To me it’s a sort of thought exercise and conversation starter, not my complete philosophical approach to the topic. I’m not religious in the slightest and probably best described as anti-theist.

Disagreeing with a philosophical stance doesn’t mean that I need to be biased in moderation.

I find antinatalism to be an interesting philosophical exercise and welcome discussion about that and people’s personal choices based on the philosophy.

To think that our times are special enough to warrant a movement like antinatalism

Antinatalism is a question first asked by ancient Greek philosophers. The modern antinatalism movement is… not so philosophical.

I’m now the mod of antinatalism on lemmy.world because the previous mod bombed a fertility clinic and I don’t want crazies like him running the sub or posting extremist content.

I believe that discussing antinatalism as an answer rather than a thought exercise is a mistake.

I reject antinatalism because I believe that suffering is not always a negative.

Could an artist not suffer for their work that brings great joy to themselves and others? Is that suffering not then worthy and good?

If something is worthy and good then denying others the opportunity to exist and be worthy and good is itself immoral.

Which comment was homophobic?

I don’t see how anyone can trust Israeli agreement to anything with how consistently they have violated ceasefire agreements.

Anything short of an agreement that all Palestinians will die seems unlikely to be honoured by Israel.

Too much missing context to say based on this short snippet alone.

Ahh yes, Russia the oligarchy which ‘refuses to be owned’.

That Russia, that is owned by private capital concentrated into the hands of the few?

Where 500 people own more than the rest of the country combined?