Message from @「SocradeezNuts」✓ᴸᵉᵗ ε<0

Discord ID: 658943238887047178


2019-12-24 07:39:23 UTC  

uh oh... I disagree a lot with this rhetoric but meh

2019-12-24 07:39:43 UTC  

Biology supervenes on the sociological, but I don't want to give Senor Scrambie Eggs

2019-12-24 07:39:49 UTC  

answers

2019-12-24 07:39:56 UTC  

I'm taking a shower

2019-12-24 07:47:04 UTC  

How much do you engage with the moralistic fallacy as well?

2019-12-24 07:56:43 UTC  

@Tbg1203 Reductio is
It is the case that most people want to have children
However, there's no should involved... if someone wants to have kids or not, there's no way that leaps you to one should call being outside the norm is a mental illness

2019-12-24 07:56:52 UTC  

It's an is/ought gap

2019-12-24 07:57:23 UTC  

It is a desire for people to have children
However, you can't get to a premise like "You should have children"

2019-12-24 07:58:21 UTC  

And if you bite the bullet on all desires then yeah.. you wind up biting the bullet on things like rape.
It is a desire for some % of people to rape others

2019-12-24 07:59:16 UTC  

That's about the whole point of this conversation... is that you can't get a "should" from a description

2019-12-24 07:59:25 UTC  

Or a prescription from a description

2019-12-24 07:59:57 UTC  

@sydtko why send me this?

2019-12-24 08:00:31 UTC  

I think you were asking a question about it...
I may have missed your exact wordage

2019-12-24 08:00:35 UTC  

Which is why I like text

2019-12-24 08:01:25 UTC  

It sounded like you were skeptical to something about the normalcy of having children or the morality of it

2019-12-24 08:02:06 UTC  

I was curious on the naturalistic fallacy

2019-12-24 08:02:42 UTC  

Oh yeah... the naturalistic fallacy and the is/ought gap are basically one and the same

2019-12-24 08:03:22 UTC  

You can't get from "It is good to live" to "You ought to live" through reason alone

2019-12-24 08:06:09 UTC  

sure

2019-12-24 08:14:48 UTC  

anti-natalism gang <:PEPELAUGH:643817011117424708>

2019-12-24 08:21:40 UTC  

@muhahahahe you online?

2019-12-24 08:22:00 UTC  

mmh

2019-12-24 08:22:18 UTC  

what up?

2019-12-24 09:09:27 UTC  

The death grip

2019-12-24 09:11:13 UTC  

Lol

2019-12-24 09:26:18 UTC  

Economy of scale

2019-12-24 09:26:40 UTC  

@Tbg1203 Unironically, it's cheaper more efficient to have homeless in places where it's easier to get goods to them

2019-12-24 09:26:51 UTC  

Urban areas

2019-12-24 09:26:52 UTC  

Yeah

2019-12-24 09:26:59 UTC  

I don't have the exact reasoning, but this is one possible reason

2019-12-24 09:27:51 UTC  

Communist boi has down stats on this

2019-12-24 09:28:02 UTC  

It's cheaper to have them closer to the services

2019-12-24 09:32:07 UTC  

What's the relevance of 125?

2019-12-24 09:32:11 UTC  

66 is the delorian