Post reply

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:
Verification:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview


Topic Summary

Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: Today at 02:32:59 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 14, 2026, 06:30:26 pm
You say it is. Someone else says the opposite. Now what?

Why should we value their unempathetic opinion?

Quote
If someone has been non-consensually locked inside a room with presently no way to communicate with those outside, but a window is timed to open tomorrow which will enable communication, should we wait until tomorrow to hear how the prisoner wants us to help, or should we release poison gas into the room today?

- The individual will almost inevitably experience bouts of unbearable panic, distress, and agony before they can communicate their wishes
- The room contains extreme danger, requiring luck and effort to avoid
- The release of poison gas is inevitable, and the only known way to escape. You would only be releasing it sooner.

This is about your opinion, not mine. What would you choose and why?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 14, 2026, 06:30:26 pm »

"The end (non-suffering) is their clear preference"

You say it is. Someone else says the opposite. Now what?

"Babies have no "choice" they can "pass to others" in the first place. Nature is already choosing on their behalf, without their consent."

If someone has been non-consensually locked inside a room with presently no way to communicate with those outside, but a window is timed to open tomorrow which will enable communication, should we wait until tomorrow to hear how the prisoner wants us to help, or should we release poison gas into the room today?

"Any intervention would be in violence which is already being committed"

You are arguing that, because violence was already committed by non-consensually locking the prisoner in the room, you are entitled to release the poison gas without permission from the prisoner.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 14, 2026, 02:34:46 pm »

Quote from: christianbethel on January 14, 2026, 12:23:38 pm
We hate life. We only live to complete our mission.

Resentful attachment is still attachment.

Quote
Everything you just said is the opposite of what we believe in.

Yet you promote it anyway, even though criminalizing abortion doesn't serve as a "means to an end" (unlike selective conception).
Posted by: christianbethel
« on: January 14, 2026, 12:23:38 pm »

Quote from: Aucontraire on January 10, 2026, 01:52:59 pm
You don't want to be killed because you've grown attached to life and afraid of death.
We hate life. We only live to complete our mission.

Quote from: Aucontraire on January 10, 2026, 01:52:59 pm
Innocence means babies have not. They don't consent to life or death. They have no discernable preference. They grow and survive because they are programmed to. Not because they will it — because nature wills it.
The only way to stop this cycle of torture is to prevent them from being conceived in the first place.

Quote from: Aucontraire on January 10, 2026, 01:52:59 pm
Aryanists understand life means they will have a body. That they will suffer and decay. They believe this outweighs any supposed "advantages". That life isn't a gift but a curse. Yet Aryanists advocate letting nature impose this curse on unborn babies, on top of having state authorities coerce people to carry through unwanted pregnancies. They also advocate exploiting children by selectively conceiving them to further their political aims.

What say you in your defense?
Everything you just said is the opposite of what we believe in.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 14, 2026, 02:55:52 am »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 13, 2026, 05:17:41 pm
If they have no preference, intervention is neither kindness nor unkindness towards them. It is initiated violence, though, since you have not been given permission by them to choose on their behalf.

Do you understand the difference between a signed contract with a declaration that the signer has no preference in a given matter (therefore passing the choice to others) and a similar contract without a signature? You are arguing in effect that the latter entitles you to choose on behalf of everyone who didn't sign.

I was referring to intervention in their suffering. The end (non-suffering) is their clear preference, they just can't answer which means they'd prefer. Just like if you were to choose "on their behalf" between non-lethal treatments, like different kinds of analgesic, or a warm bath or some milk and a cuddle.

But, besides (apparently) attacking an argument I didn't make, your reasoning has a major flaw: Babies have no "choice" they can "pass to others" in the first place. Nature is already choosing on their behalf, without their consent. Any intervention would be in violence which is already being committed — not in an individual's agency over whether they live or die.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 13, 2026, 05:17:41 pm »

"If they don't prefer life or death, there's no need to let that question delay intervention."

If they have no preference, intervention is neither kindness nor unkindness towards them. It is initiated violence, though, since you have not been given permission by them to choose on their behalf.

Do you understand the difference between a signed contract with a declaration that the signer has no preference in a given matter (therefore passing the choice to others) and a similar contract without a signature? You are arguing in effect that the latter entitles you to choose on behalf of everyone who didn't sign.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 13, 2026, 03:55:56 am »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 13, 2026, 01:19:05 am
Pick one.

You're deflecting. Answer the questions.
Or don't. I don't care. It's clear babies don't want to suffer. If they don't prefer life or death, there's no need to let that question delay intervention.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 13, 2026, 01:19:05 am »

"Do you listen when a newborn cries, or do think that's not a clear enough expression of preference?"

Also you:

Quote
They have no discernable preference.

Pick one.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 13, 2026, 12:44:20 am »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 11, 2026, 07:04:45 pm
It would be kinder to the conceived to keep them safe until they have expressed a preference one way or another, and only thereafter help them on whichever path they prefer.

Exposing them to life's cruelty is hardly "keeping them safe", is it? Do you listen when a newborn cries, or do think that's not a clear enough expression of preference?
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 11, 2026, 07:04:45 pm »

"The topic was abortion."

So you want me to answer:

Quote
Abortion = Kindness?

Kindness is about actively helping others in achieving their aims. I would agree that abortion is kindness towards those who regret conceiving. (Whether they deserve it is another matter.) Abortion is however not kindness towards the conceived, since they have not expressed a preference either way, as you yourself note:

Quote
They don't consent to life or death. They have no discernable preference.

It would be kinder to the conceived to keep them safe until they have expressed a preference one way or another, and only thereafter help them on whichever path they prefer. So, logically, the only people who could consistently believe abortion=kindness overall would be those who deem that kindness towards conceivers should take priority over kindness towards the conceived.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 11, 2026, 05:20:45 pm »

Quote from: 90sRetroFan on January 10, 2026, 04:19:13 pm
If you are referring to our advocacy for state control over reproduction, I have stated previously that no one will be coerced to conceive.

The topic was abortion. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you accidentally glanced over that.
Posted by: 90sRetroFan
« on: January 10, 2026, 04:19:13 pm »

"They don't consent to life or death."

I agree. This is why we eventually want an end to conceptions:

https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-false-left/re-childcare-issues/

"Aryanists advocate letting nature impose this curse on unborn babies"

We do not. We are looking for the path that will lead to the end of this.

"on top of having state authorities coerce people to carry through unwanted pregnancies"

If you are referring to our advocacy for state control over reproduction, I have stated previously that no one will be coerced to conceive. Instead, we will incentivize the racially superior to conceive by offering the prevention of a larger number of conceptions by the racially inferior in exchange. Recall from the main site:

Quote
The one and only ethical way to motivate Aryans to reproduce is to set up a system such that the more they reproduce, the fewer the total number of children being born. For example, the state could set an initial maximum limit of total births for each year. But then the state could add a rule that, for each one birth by the pre-designated Aryan subset within the population, it will lower the limit for the following year by two births. This would mean that each Aryan birth produces a net effect of preventing one child from being born. Hence the more enthusiastic we are about depopulation, the more we would reproduce. (The incentive can be amplified by increasing the arithmetic gradient as required e.g. each Aryan birth could prevent 10, 100, 1000, etc. children from being born.)

"They also advocate exploiting children by selectively conceiving them to further their political aims."

If you are advocating instead that the state should directly prevent all conceptions simultaneously, I agree that this would be more ideal, but fear that it would be impractical and lead to the state running out of staffers (and hence losing control over the population) before mission completion, following which the remainder who outlasted us will just go back to their old habits.

If you wish to propose an alternative antinatalist plan, I would be happy to read it.
Posted by: Aucontraire
« on: January 10, 2026, 01:52:59 pm »

You don't want to be killed because you've grown attached to life and afraid of death. Innocence means babies have not. They don't consent to life or death. They have no discernable preference. They grow and survive because they are programmed to. Not because they will it — because nature wills it.

Aryanists understand life means they will have a body. That they will suffer and decay. They believe this outweighs any supposed "advantages". That life isn't a gift but a curse. Yet Aryanists advocate letting nature impose this curse on unborn babies, on top of having state authorities coerce people to carry through unwanted pregnancies. They also advocate exploiting children by selectively conceiving them to further their political aims.

What say you in your defense?