That's the deficit.

I tax my children. I just loan them pieces of paper that they have to earn by working for me, then they use their debt to pay for the things they need to stay alive, but at the end of each year I make them pay it back to me with interest. This way they stay in perpetual debt to me, and my kids always a have a job.

Instead of an argument on taxing children, perhaps we should just not give families with kids so many advantages over the rest of us who don’t get married and have kids. It’s crazy that normal healthy people get advantages like tax breaks for being married but disabled people on benefits are treated the opposite way and penalized if they get married.

Same

I'm definitely for that. Put em to work & tax em

😂😂😂

Antinatalism is the only philosophy that protects children from harm.

The guy sounds like Exdeath from Final Fantasy 4 or any other final fantasy villain. "Existence brings suffering so therefore existence is bad and therefore I will kill everyone". It's dumb life existential bullshit that doesnt make any sense

He's inevitable

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣

Little one, it's a simple calculus. Life needs to be corrected.

😂

Thanos calls in... and Tim Pool is like, the utilitarian is usually the bad guy in superhero movies.

You can see it from them both. That was The Moment of the whole video

Surprised she's not a little more jaded

Same.

Apparently he didn't finish the book, or even read past the world building

Marcus O., This dude doesn't understand that, given his reasoning, his parents could have been convinced that they shouldn't have kids because of x,y,z. Then he's wouldn't be here to offer his opinion.

Iceland's lack of Down Syndrome is more important than your feelings. The caller was way too fucking vague to make a proper humanistic case, however.

@@synchronium24 I read around a little after seeing this comment. It seems like Iceland offers voluntary pre-natal testing, and would-be parents make an informed decision on whether or not to terminate pregnancy. Same way parents can choose to terminate a pregnancy if they see a debilitating deformity from an ultrasound. Children with Down’s are still born (albeit, very few. About 2 to 3) every year in Iceland. Your reply seems to be defending eugenics (which involves government enforcement), but Iceland isn’t doing eugenics.

And he goes to 'the entire experience of the animal kingdom is suffering and should end'

@@thatdarnskag5043 You are correct about the Iceland policy. I thought screening was mandatory, while abortion was voluntary. Turns out they are voluntary. As for eugenics: " In recent years, the term has seen a revival in bioethical discussions on the usage of new technologies such as CRISPR and genetic screening, with a heated debate on whether these technologies should be called eugenics or not." Which was the main thrust of my comment. Anything vaguely associated with eugenics, no matter how reasonable, is linked to Nazism.

Some Christian fundamentalist tool could and probably would say the same thing about gay sex, this means nothing

'What you call genocide, I call compassion'

@@shady8045 No, no. You misunderstand I think. Christian fundamentalists also believe the world is only suffering. They just believe that people *deserve* the suffering because this world is a punishment for us all due to the original sin of Adam and Eve. With a deal of "If you follow God's laws, you get to enjoy eternal bliss after you die"

Sickle cell is insanely rare.

I think they just came out with a treatment for that.

That popped out to me, as well.

A fun fact. People with cicle cell can't get malaria. It's an evolutionary phenomenon to make sure the human race survives in an environment where malaria was prominent. Diseases and genetic issues have reasons. In the right environment and conditions they are life saving. In the wrong one they are deniabiliting

@@katherineminor3402 It would be fine if this adaptation didn’t have any negative consequences. Debilitating pain and fatigue.

Or how about "don't make everyone pay for kids they didn't have a decision in making"?

right, without thinking.

@@scrubjay93 i mean it was a pretty clear statement lol.

Thanos has nothing on Sam since his Aamon Animations video.

Perfect example of how eugenics is basically pseudo-science for racism.

@@balvarine8709 Yeah he sounded like he was referring to my people when he brought up sickle cell anemia.

Antinatalistism is not eugenics, your comment is stupid and ignorant

@@noah5291 Yeah, the caller is antinatalist. The difference is, I thought antinatalism was philosophical, rather than actually calling for government action to restrict births.

Well i think there are certainly genetic disorders that are objectively bad. But I think it's up to the individual to weigh the risk of passing that on. The government should never have a say in that

@@mr.dirtydan3338to some degree it already does, such as in the case of incest

“It’s not eugenics if I apply it to everyone!”

It never does, but we love him for it. He get too much glee out of poking the proverbial bear. xDD

Deep down, the right knows that it has lost the battle of the ideas. Hence, the effort to rebrand all of their awful ideas. (Yes, both sides liked eugenics 100 years ago, but something changed that about 80-90 years ago. Gee, I wonder what or whom.) That's why "white supremacist" became white nationalist, then ethnostate and alt-right.

For me, sadly it's not a lie LOL

@@Creslin321 LMAO

He was extremely confused.

He explained it in one of the worst ways possible (and confused the issue by making it a eugenics thing, probably as an attempt to make anti-natalism more "marketable" but almost certainly just alienating even more people in the process), but the point is a question of consent. People who are alive can consent to stuff, because they are people who are alive. People who aren't alive can't consent to anything, because they don't exist. Thus if you're giving birth to people you are necessarily subjecting them to things without their consent in a way that is fundamentally different to just going around murdering people. I don't blame Sam and the others for not understanding how their counterargument didn't really work since the dude did such a poor job of even setting up the conversation, and in any case this definitely isn't the show to try to argue extreme philosophical positions on anyway.

​@@TheSquareOnesare you claiming people consent to having cancer or diseases? He explained it poorly because it is stupid way to look at it. You can't have babies because you might have one with an issue and they didn't consent to that, but adults don't consent to disease either. No one consents to have disease.

@@robingalbraith323 No. I'm saying the unborn can't consent to anything and you're forcing them into a situation where negative experiences are highly likely if not certain to happen. Whether or not adults can consent to disease is irrelevant, I'm not sure where you got that from and if anything it just supports my argument. Yes, people who exist will experience horrible things they didn't want, what a great reason to stop forcing people to exist.

@@TheSquareOnes "people who are alive can consent to stuff, because they are people who are alive." so since this entire discussion you are adding your opinion on, was specifically about disease and illness, i dont know why it would be a shock that i applied your comment to the literal topic at hand, ie illness and disease. then this gem "people who exist will experience horrible things" but yet earlier you said "if you're giving birth to people you are necessarily subjecting them to things without their consent in a way the is fundamentally different to just going around murdering people" people dont consent to murder. so wouldnt that be exactly the same, ie subjecting someone to horrible things without their consent. to be honest, you make even less sense than the guy in the video.

I mean, isn't that a meaningful distinction? One is mass murder and one involves no murder at all. Unless you think that people who were never born should be counted as deaths.

To be fair, he only wanted to end all life for humans and animals. He said nothing about plants.

@@joshuakb2 The end result is functionally the same, and both scenarios require stripping the rights to one's own body away.

You mean the right to force people into existence

@@Austin-dm1in Idk if I follow

Sickle cell is also rare to pass on and only will when both parents have the gene. My fiancé was the only one out of 4 kids to have it with the same parents. If you have sickle cell you can literally find others without it in their genes. Even if two people with it have children the children have low odds of having it.

Exactly, it’s a personal choice. Now, we have genetic testing to determine the risk and odds of inheriting the disease; and while still highly controversial, the option for IVF and pre-genetic diagnosis to eliminate or minimize that risk altogether.

@@HoudiniFontmeister do you know the difference between homozygous and heterozygous genes? cause i'm pretty sure you can have one parent with one copy of sickle cell, the other parent with no sickle cell, and half of their kids will have one copy and the other half will have none.

I was thinking eugenicist. What's an anti-natalist?

@@andredunbar3773 An ethical stand against procreation. It's inherently immoral to bring children into a life filled with pain and hardship.

@@andredunbar3773They believe that because humans have the capacity to suffer it's better to never have been born. So they advocate for voluntarily ending human procreation. Tho this guy includes animals which I've never heard before haha. But they still think life is worth living if you're already born so they don't advocate for like suicide or genocide.

@@hermanisaza67 Correction, a ridiculous arbitrary attempt to decide who has worth and who doesn't. Which self-implodes on itself. Its a SELF PROCLAIMED Ethical take, lol. It's not ethical to assess for someone else, whether their life has merit and whether their living out weighs or doesn't out weigh the suffering they may experience or impose. Its like, 9th grade just learned about philosophy level thinking lol.

They have a really cringey and unintentionally hilarious subreddit 🤣

@Ruthless Minion If you can’t understand the difference between individual choice-what the pro-choice movement is all about-and restricting reproductive rights-Margaret Sanger and the pro-life movement-I don’t know how to help you. Sorry bro

And don't forget about Ruthless Strawman i mean Minion

@Ruthless Minion WTF is your point? '...Post-modern...blah blah...woke projection...blah blah...comfortable discussing eugenics so brazenly''? You must barely be passing your philosophy classes. Articulate your point better

@Ruthless Minion "if you didn't understand my shit point, it's your fault, not mine for being shit at articulating my shit point."

@Ruthless Minion You arer right, this segment is about someone who fails at logic, and struggles with day to day life. They have presupposed their life has more value than that of a person in a wheelchair or has an overbite. This segment is about a type of person that presumes to know and have the ability to know the "value" of a life, while naturally holding their own to the highest level. You are right, this segment is about idiots thinking nothing should exist. A nihilist - aka the biggest waste of time ever.

🤣 hahahahaha

Sam: Who's this and where you calling from? "Uh hey this is Sephiroth from the North Crater"

Always carry a Phoenix down so flower bae doesn't die?

@@oo0O08 Yeah, basically. Like, I respect not wanting to have kids in todays world. It's wild, a lot of things are up in the air and I personally (not an anti-natalist) don't know if I can make that decision morally. But... my dude, you don't get to impose that choice on other people through taxation. Least of which is because having children creates MORE problem solvers. Dude was straight up like "Yeah, everyone would be better off if they died because that would end their suffering." But like, people don't want to either die nor suffer, generally speaking. >w< I mean, I joke about "We need someone to cast meteor." all the time, but this guy was down to clown for real! xD

The guys a Antinatalist, he doesn't think "anyone" should be making babies. I do think he's coming at this more from a "severe" genetic disorder, which I don't think Spina Bifida is. Something along the lines of Cystic fibrosis, often would see people dying in their teens / 20's. Which might not even be correct, as I think they just had a break through drug last couple years. Edit to be clear, not defending his stance, I do think people wanting to have kids should get checked on their own. I do think it's selfish to knowingly pass on a severe disorder to a child.

@@spencers4121 For the CF thing you’re correct, there is medicine that’s makes the symptoms of CF go away but a person still has it (it’s a good medication but not everyone can take it)

@@spencers4121 Their position is fundementally flawed, and mostly arrogant. They presume to know what the limits of medical treatments are. This person's attempt to use medical Dxs as a crutch for their ultimate goal, no babies aka no life, while also arbitrarily determining what is suffering. See how they just straight said "Animals shouldn't be here either, too much suffering" as if nature has any sense of this when it comes to the process of life. Its absurd. Assume this stance back in the early days of medicine. How many people would have been prevented from living / killed off because they felt certain traits passed on from parent to child couldn't be addressed to provide a good life. Not only that, where do we draw the line? Is living wheelchair bound suffering? Is having half your teeth suffering? It stems from poor thinking, and failing to be able to globalize a position and understand the impact. Basically, its how you get a Libertarian.

Does she feel she's lived a good life?

triknives It's beyond things like diseases and illness though it also has to do with the fact that life itself can just become too overwhelming at any point in time for some people who don't want to be bothered with non stop responsibilities of keeping up with payments and interacting with people and being in need of necessities all the time to even be comfortable in life. It's also no secret that the environment is taking a quick turn for the worst it just has hasn't kicked into full gear yet but soon enough the effects will be noticed and it will be too late for all of us and the best thing to do would prevent more people from having to deal with those consequences from the mindless mistakes of other generations.

We're beyond saving anyway. Better to get it over with fast.

If you think life isn't worth living and there's no joy in this world that is worth the suffering that comes with life then there's a good chance you're suffering from clinical depression. These callers don't contemplate the possibility their own difficulties in finding joy and meaning in their lives are a subjective matter rather than an objective truth about the universe. Instead of recognizing pathology they turn it into a philosophy.

@@ShareefsCrewTV just genuinely curious, have you heard of David Benatar?

@@Opheliakami I looked him up seems like a sad sack loser and he is a white South African so he’s probably just sad he doesn’t have state enforced supremacy anymore

Yea, they've been enjoying too many Libertarian reddits.

@@johnjohn2570 lol, wow.

Neonatalism is a serious philosophical position.It's not practical, or desireable, or any way realistic. I mean as a technical philosophical line of thought; it's serious.

More like, he who remains.

There shouldn't be a law on it, but if you have genetic diseases and choose to have children who are also born with your disease, you are a selfish piece of shit. Adoption is the way to go.

@@sullen2420 where do you draw the line? what about people with family histories of breast cancer or prostate cancer? in other words, how genetically perfect does one have to be in order to have children and not be called a selfish piece of shit?

@@benselander1482 Having children includes adoption, so not sure what the issue is here. If you have a disease likely to be passed down genetically, try adoption.

@@sullen2420 strike one! my question was where do you draw the line? Are people who procreate and produce children “pieces of shit” if they have family history of (for example) breast cancer or prostate cancer?

@@benselander1482 A lot of people get cancer. I'll give you an example. My brother in law has a terrible intestinal disease, if he eats ANY fiber he'll die. It's really serious. He had a kid with his wife, now that kid has, you guessed it, the same thing for life. He's a piece of shit for procreating because he KNEW it would very very likely have the same disease. So HE is a piece of shit for that. Adoption should be WAY more common than it is, but people are morons and they think direct genetic relation supersedes being a good parent.

He didn't sound to confident either lol

And Huntington's is much more specific to Europeans. You are being really bad faith and making a lot of assumptions. Pretty sad that this is what the comment section turns into

@@noah5291 you are the caller right?

@@noah5291 as a self-proclaimed steward and curator of the comment section, shouldn't you be less-inclined to copy/paste the same response over and over? i would suggest that this is bad etiquette, but you do you mr. goodfaith.

Yeah I was thinking just that. He told on himself with that HARD

It's right up there with the anarcho capitalist callers.

Not a eugenicist. He's a Antinatalist. People who believe that humanity should stop procreating because their bringing life into a world full of suffering

@Justin Time no because he wants to end all human life with the least amount of suffering possible.

@Justin Time again you should probably look into what that means before you decide to talk about this with any athority.

Totally get what you're saying. So sorry about your life's situation. There have been "Wrongful Birth" lawsuits filed in the past by parents or guardians of a disabled child (and a case of a young adult in Israel.) Another controversy is being created just for the purpose of being a biological medical donor for a diseased sibling. Being born so the parents can use that child's biological tissues to medically treat the sick child. Talk about eugenics.

On the flip side, my sister was born with deficiencies such that she can never care for herself in any capacity. My mother still takes dutiful care of her 41 years later. Changing diapers her whole life. Shackled to a strict schedule. How is that fair? Obviously we need assisted care for certain individuals. Too bad people like Manchin inhibit programs and funding for that. And letting people get put into homes doesn't work; those people live miserable barely-cared-for lives

You would have a completely different opinion on your life if the government was doing what it was supposed to with supporting you. You shouldn't have never been born, we should have eliminated conservativism from polite society

It’s 100% eugenics, no extra steps needed.

He hate hate hate hate hate hate hates children.

Sounds like a troll pretending to be genuine

It's not clear to me that anti-natalism is a terrible opinion. He shouldn't have called the show though, it's totally orthogonal to any topic of relevance to MR.

@@balarka3885 Anti-natalism isn't the problem, what this caller was going for in his motte and bailey argument was primarily focused on disabilities and deformities. They only fell back to their bailey of anti-natalism when it was shown how idiotic their argument regarding centralized control of reproduction was.

@@steik6414 I wasn't certain about if that was what he was really going for but it's certainly extremely weird to start with what happens to be a very common eugenics trope.