Message from @「SocradeezNuts」✓ᴸᵉᵗ ε<0
Discord ID: 658938605796065280
My connection is fucked
same
my connection is like 300 kbps
I thought you were rich
Why is your internet so bad
I'm not rich? I'm quite privileged but not rich
Actually, my internet's doing surprisingly ok 1mbps right now
I've lived my life like... month to month of less than $150-200 per month + rent
You call that pribledged?
I'm privileged in that I'm not homeless ... and have been able to live what is effectively a NEET life mooching for a long while
@Deleted User dont server mute mikaela
just do .stop
.stop
Oops
I meant to personal mute
uh oh... I disagree a lot with this rhetoric but meh
Biology supervenes on the sociological, but I don't want to give Senor Scrambie Eggs
answers
I'm taking a shower
How much do you engage with the moralistic fallacy as well?
@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
It's an is/ought gap
It is a desire for people to have children
However, you can't get to a premise like "You should have children"
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
That's about the whole point of this conversation... is that you can't get a "should" from a description
Or a prescription from a description
I think you were asking a question about it...
I may have missed your exact wordage
Which is why I like text
It sounded like you were skeptical to something about the normalcy of having children or the morality of it
I was curious on the naturalistic fallacy
Oh yeah... the naturalistic fallacy and the is/ought gap are basically one and the same
You can't get from "It is good to live" to "You ought to live" through reason alone
sure
anti-natalism gang <:PEPELAUGH:643817011117424708>