NationStates

Here I define familism as the combination of three irrational ideologies, namely the tendency to have sex (i.e. copulatism), reproduce (i.e. reproducism) and give one's resources freely to family (i.e. microcommunism).

Copulatism is the least irrational among the three for sex is at least pleasurable. However it is not worth what people think it is worth.

Reproducism is insane because reproduction is usually harmful and sometimes deadly to organisms that reproduce.

Reasons to reject communism are all applicable to its special case, namely microcommunism.

NSG, what do you think? More importantly what are your arguments?

P.S. How much is sacrificed on a delusional idea, namely muh bloodline? I think it is easy to discover that familism sucks unless you are a collectivist who believes in the absurd idea that there is an eternal and infinite dynasty known as da bloodline.

I would speculate that sexual urges make people less inclined to form families. Can't have sex all day if you have kids to raise.

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:I would speculate that sexual urges make people less inclined to form families. Can't have sex all day if you have kids to raise.

Kids suck. That's simply a fact.

I have never seen any familist with a good argument either here or elsewhere. So I do assume that familism is a strong pre-human delusion selected for by evolution and that most humans will never think their way to freedom.

Neko-koku wrote:Here I define familism as the combination of three irrational ideologies,

Gotta stop you right there. If you already define it as irrational, you're begging the question. So the answer to your question is "necessarily, but only because your argument is shit".

namely the tendency to have sex (i.e. copulatism),

Not an ideology, not an -ism, and not irrational.

reproduce (i.e. reproducism)

Not an ideology, -ism, or irrational.

and give one's resources freely to family (i.e. microcommunism).

Not an ideology, not an -ism, not communism and not irrational.

Copulatism is the least irrational among the three for sex is at least pleasurable. However it is not worth what people think it is worth.

Reproducism is insane because reproduction is usually harmful and sometimes deadly to organisms that reproduce.

Reasons to reject communism are all applicable to its special case, namely microcommunism.

Rejected as the outcome of several fallacies.

NSG, what do you think? More importantly what are your arguments?

Your arguments are quite shit, and your words are misused.

There, I solved the thread!

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:Here I define familism as the combination of three irrational ideologies,

Gotta stop you right there. If you already define it as irrational, you're begging the question. So the answer to your question is "necessarily, but only because your argument is shit".

namely the tendency to have sex (i.e. copulatism),

Not an ideology, not an -ism, and not irrational.

reproduce (i.e. reproducism)

Not an ideology, -ism, or irrational.

and give one's resources freely to family (i.e. microcommunism).

Not an ideology, not an -ism, not communism and not irrational.

Copulatism is the least irrational among the three for sex is at least pleasurable. However it is not worth what people think it is worth.

Reproducism is insane because reproduction is usually harmful and sometimes deadly to organisms that reproduce.

Reasons to reject communism are all applicable to its special case, namely microcommunism.

Rejected as the outcome of several fallacies.

NSG, what do you think? More importantly what are your arguments?

Your arguments are quite shit, and your words are misused.

There, I solved the thread!

Lol nope.

However your stance may be consistent though as you are a socialist lol...even though it sucks.

A bit of communism in a family is needed. If not, humanity will die out.







Do you want that?

Why do you feel the need to put an -ism at the end of all of these things? It's unnecessary.

MineLegotia and Equestria wrote:A bit of communism in a family is needed. If not, humanity will die out.







Do you want that?

If a theistic deity/deities exist then most people will end up in one form of hell or another simply for not believing in the right sect of the right religion among who knows how many religions. In this case life is like a lottery and almost everyone loses.

If the world is atheistic or deist then thankfully at least there isn't hell. However the universe is very harsh and humans can be destroyed by aliens or robots at any time.

I'm not cruel enough to bring another human life into the world.

Neko-koku wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:Gotta stop you right there. If you already define it as irrational, you're begging the question. So the answer to your question is "necessarily, but only because your argument is shit".
Not an ideology, not an -ism, and not irrational.
Not an ideology, -ism, or irrational.
Not an ideology, not an -ism, not communism and not irrational.

Rejected as the outcome of several fallacies.

Your arguments are quite shit, and your words are misused.

There, I solved the thread!

Lol nope.

However your stance may be consistent though as you are a socialist lol...even though it sucks.

Rejecting your arguments because you're building a fallacy and can't use words correctly is unrelated to my own ideology. I take your "lol nope" as acknowledgement that you can't defend your argument and thus have to resort to cheap non-retorts.

MineLegotia and Equestria wrote:A bit of communism in a family is needed. If not, humanity will die out.







Do you want that?

You can't have communism in a family. There are no means of production to be seized by all the workers. It's simply not possible.

I think the fact that you thought this would be the right place to post this is the worst delusion in the world

Attempted Socialism wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:Lol nope.

However your stance may be consistent though as you are a socialist lol...even though it sucks.

Rejecting your arguments because you're building a fallacy and can't use words correctly is unrelated to my own ideology. I take your "lol nope" as acknowledgement that you can't defend your argument and thus have to resort to cheap non-retorts.

MineLegotia and Equestria wrote:A bit of communism in a family is needed. If not, humanity will die out.







Do you want that?

You can't have communism in a family. There are no means of production to be seized by all the workers. It's simply not possible.

OK now at least you are arguing.

I define "communism" in a broader way, namely people being obliged to share resources with others. What I described indeed does not satisfy your definition.

Regna Loreau wrote:I think the fact that you thought this would be the right place to post this is the worst delusion in the world

I have done it elsewhere too. Humans are generally too deluded to understand rejection of familism.

Neko-koku wrote:

MineLegotia and Equestria wrote:A bit of communism in a family is needed. If not, humanity will die out.







Do you want that?

If a theistic deity/deities exist then most people will end up in one form of hell or another simply for not believing in the right sect of the right religion among who knows how many religions. In this case life is like a lottery and almost everyone loses.

If the world is atheistic or deist then thankfully at least there isn't hell. However the universe is very harsh and humans can be destroyed by aliens or robots at any time.

I'm not cruel enough to bring another human life into the world.

If so, isn;t murder justified? IF so, i could theoratically kill someone else because i'm ending their suffering.

THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

Humanity is not perfect, but that does not mean we should kill of humanity. We have no proof that any other intelligent life exists, and we might be one of the first, if not the first emergence of life in the universe. Do you want to destroy life? Life which is beautiful?

Oh no. Other than the slightly nonsensical choice of wording and definitions I sort of agree.

Silly season is infectious, close the forum.

Neko-koku wrote:

Attempted Socialism wrote:Rejecting your arguments because you're building a fallacy and can't use words correctly is unrelated to my own ideology. I take your "lol nope" as acknowledgement that you can't defend your argument and thus have to resort to cheap non-retorts.

You can't have communism in a family. There are no means of production to be seized by all the workers. It's simply not possible.

OK now at least you are arguing.

I define "communism" in a broader way, namely people being obliged to share resources with others.

I countered all your arguments before, and took your non-retort as the only reply you could muster - how am I suddenly arguing now?
It doesn't make it better to reinforce my point that you're using the words in a way that is incoherent, wrong or begging the question. Your entire premise is fallacious, the rest of your argument is garbage.

MineLegotia and Equestria wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:
If a theistic deity/deities exist then most people will end up in one form of hell or another simply for not believing in the right sect of the right religion among who knows how many religions. In this case life is like a lottery and almost everyone loses.

If the world is atheistic or deist then thankfully at least there isn't hell. However the universe is very harsh and humans can be destroyed by aliens or robots at any time.

I'm not cruel enough to bring another human life into the world.

If so, isn;t murder justified? IF so, i could theoratically kill someone else because i'm ending their suffering.

THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

Humanity is not perfect, but that does not mean we should kill of humanity. We have no proof that any other intelligent life exists, and we might be one of the first, if not the first emergence of life in the universe. Do you want to destroy life? Life which is beautiful?

I reject murder for the threat of either hell or extermination can not be alleviated by....causing exactly that!

However isn't it good to prevent more humans from being born? The nonexistent can not suffer.

Neko-koku wrote:

LimaUniformNovemberAlpha wrote:I would speculate that sexual urges make people less inclined to form families. Can't have sex all day if you have kids to raise.

Kids suck. That's simply a fact.

The entire biological world disagrees, but okay

Neko-koku wrote:

MineLegotia and Equestria wrote:
If so, isn;t murder justified? IF so, i could theoratically kill someone else because i'm ending their suffering.

THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

Humanity is not perfect, but that does not mean we should kill of humanity. We have no proof that any other intelligent life exists, and we might be one of the first, if not the first emergence of life in the universe. Do you want to destroy life? Life which is beautiful?

I reject murder for the threat of either hell or extermination can not be alleviated by....causing exactly that!

However isn't it good to prevent more humans from being born? The nonexistent can not suffer.

Here's a better idea... it isn't good for us to die out altogether, because humans are uniquely moral among nature's creatures. However. we should deliberately breed at lower than the replacement rate so our population diminishes until there are more natural resources per person, improving our quality of life.

Neko-koku wrote:

MineLegotia and Equestria wrote:
If so, isn;t murder justified? IF so, i could theoratically kill someone else because i'm ending their suffering.

THIS IS NOT RIGHT.

Humanity is not perfect, but that does not mean we should kill of humanity. We have no proof that any other intelligent life exists, and we might be one of the first, if not the first emergence of life in the universe. Do you want to destroy life? Life which is beautiful?

I reject murder for the threat of either hell or extermination can not be alleviated by....causing exactly that!

However isn't it good to prevent more humans from being born? The nonexistent can not suffer.

So you're saying we should just let life die out? That's foolish, your argument contradicts. We cannot kill others but we must let ourselves die? What type of worldview is that?

MineLegotia and Equestria wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:
I reject murder for the threat of either hell or extermination can not be alleviated by....causing exactly that!

However isn't it good to prevent more humans from being born? The nonexistent can not suffer.

So you're saying we should just let life die out? That's foolish, your argument contradicts. We cannot kill others but we must let ourselves die? What type of worldview is that?

It's only a problem if you are a collectivist. Murder and breeding are both collectivist in nature. As an individualist I reject both.

Neko-koku wrote:Here I define familism as the combination of three irrational ideologies, namely the tendency to have sex (i.e. copulatism), reproduce (i.e. reproducism) and give one's resources freely to family (i.e. microcommunism).

Copulatism is the least irrational among the three for sex is at least pleasurable. However it is not worth what people think it is worth.

Reproducism is insane because reproduction is usually harmful and sometimes deadly to organisms that reproduce.

Reasons to reject communism are all applicable to its special case, namely microcommunism.

NSG, what do you think? More importantly what are your arguments?

P.S. How much is sacrificed on a delusional idea, namely muh bloodline? I think it is easy to discover that familism sucks unless you are a collectivist who believes in the absurd idea that there is an eternal and infinite dynasty known as da bloodline.

I mean it's not really microcommunism now is it? At least historically speaking the idea that your Children were more or less your property to do with as you please, up to and including selling them into slavery in the Roman context, means that you were having sex, which is pleasurable. Then producing valuable assets in the form of more hands to aid the family. Daughters could be married off to secure alliances if you were rich/noble or for an extra bit of livestock or goods as part of the Bride Price. Sons would be able to bring in value through their labors and help expand the family business.

It's capitalism at it's purest. The fact that socialists have done their darndest to fuck up our lovely capitalistic system with their social nonsense and then blame the issues on capitalism doesn't make them right.

Hakons wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:Kids suck. That's simply a fact.

The entire biological world disagrees, but okay

Because they are all victims of familism to various extants (e.g. some organisms don't have sex, however all have reproducism).

Neko-koku wrote:However isn't it good to prevent more humans from being born? The nonexistent can not suffer.

Who are you to say whether it is good or bad that another human should exist. Who are you to say that those born into suffering still can't have a valuable life? To deny the existence of future humans based on your own bias on the value of life is a profound evil. People find meaning or lack of it in their lives by their own rationalizations and interactions with the metaphysical. We don't need you to tell us how they will or will not suffer.

The Emerald Legion wrote:

Neko-koku wrote:Here I define familism as the combination of three irrational ideologies, namely the tendency to have sex (i.e. copulatism), reproduce (i.e. reproducism) and give one's resources freely to family (i.e. microcommunism).

Copulatism is the least irrational among the three for sex is at least pleasurable. However it is not worth what people think it is worth.

Reproducism is insane because reproduction is usually harmful and sometimes deadly to organisms that reproduce.

Reasons to reject communism are all applicable to its special case, namely microcommunism.

NSG, what do you think? More importantly what are your arguments?

P.S. How much is sacrificed on a delusional idea, namely muh bloodline? I think it is easy to discover that familism sucks unless you are a collectivist who believes in the absurd idea that there is an eternal and infinite dynasty known as da bloodline.

I mean it's not really microcommunism now is it? At least historically speaking the idea that your Children were more or less your property to do with as you please, up to and including selling them into slavery in the Roman context, means that you were having sex, which is pleasurable. Then producing valuable assets in the form of more hands to aid the family. Daughters could be married off to secure alliances if you were rich/noble or for an extra bit of livestock or goods as part of the Bride Price. Sons would be able to bring in value through their labors and help expand the family business.

It's capitalism at it's purest. The fact that socialists have done their darndest to fuck up our lovely capitalistic system with their social nonsense and then blame the issues on capitalism doesn't make them right.

That also fucking sucks because it also grossly violates individualism.