University Professor Calls For Global Genocide


AT LEAST IT BRINGS THE GENOCIDAL SPIRIT TO THE SURFACE: “People should never, under any circumstance, procreate!” claims Benatar, a professor of “bioethics”. Right, we have heard of that position before, for example in Nazi Germany where thousands of descendants of French soldiers were forcibly neutered (when not killed). ‘Rhineland bastards’ – born to German mothers, but fathered by French-African soldiers stationed in Germany after World War One – were forcibly sterilised in a comprehensive campaign in 1937.

I often argue that the Anglo-Saxon mentality, author of the world’s greatest empire, has genocidal tendencies (because precisely, the ability to inflict genocide brought “Lebensraum“, vital space). This genocidal tendency was illustrated by a ridiculously offensive, and, demonstrably, criminal, article in Aeon “Having Children Is Not Life Affirming, It’s Immoral.” Aeon defines itself as a “magazine of ideas”. It’s nice to see it does not eschew enlightening controversies.

In Aeon David Benatar, professor of philosophy and HEAD of the department of philosophy at the University of Cape Town extolls genocide of the entire human race. David Benatar says in Aeon: “Kids? Just say no. You don’t have to dislike children to see the harms done by having them. There is a moral case against procreation. In 2006, I published a book called Better Never to Have Been. I argued that coming into existence is always a serious harm. People should never, under any circumstance, procreate – a position called ‘anti-natalism’.”

Benatar has actually made a successful career out of calling to global genocide (most probably because arguments for global genocide inure people to arguments for local genocide, thus those who have some potential genocide in mind can only love Benatar’s radical approach). Benatar is also the director of the BIOETHICS Centre (the Nazis, too, were heavily in bioethics and protecting animals, they did lots for the environment). Benatar’s latest book is Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, in which Benatar argues that coming into existence is a serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence, and that, as a consequence, it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings (2017).

There is those who cry wolf, and then there are those who say the wolf is a good thing, when it comes to eat everybody, as it was ordained by “god”. In truth, it’s a dirty trick, especially when found in a sacred text, to inure people to the worst infamies.

The Nazis didn’t know Benatar, they didn’t need to. This is exactly the argument they used against those they didn’t like: their coming into existence was a serious harm. One has to beware of the setting-up of a maximally toxic emotional context (as one can observe with the Catalonia question, or the Rohingyas question, right now). Inuring to the concept of holocaust and genocide is the most fundamental of these contextual traps. Because it’s a neurohormonal trap.

Right, let’s genocide those pesky humans. One could start with, Benatar, with Australian (Native) children, Canadian (Native) children, and all sorts of Native children all around. Oh, I forgot, these were the policies pursued in Australia, North America… With great success: those populations, once 100% dominant on their continents, have been, basically, brought out of existence.

Why is “Antinatalism” criminal, why such a heavy charge? Criminal, because the essay linked above gives an absolute argument to enact genocides, holocausts, etc.

The UN General Assembly 260 A, article 2, the convention on genocide, says, among other things, that it defines genocide as…

(b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;

(c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

Benatar inflicts serious mental harm by saying that our very existence is “serious harm”. Although he doesn’t have enough power to prevent births, he is given enough power (through mass publishing, and a prestigious university chair) to entice others to take measures to prevent births. (Or was he, a white man, just thinking of non-white African in a traditional racist way?)

The United Nation Law should be that ENTICING to commit genocide should itself be viewed as criminal. (That doesn’t mean one should stop reading the Bible, the Qur’an, “Mein Kampf”, or the Vedas, anymore… One can view all these as fiction. But if these are not taught as fiction, but as “bioethics”, a line is crossed!) 

Benatar’s basic argument is that pain is bad, life brings pain, thus life should be exterminated, bringing an end to pain.

He understood nothing. Verily, Pain Is Good, Genocides Are Bad.

I will come back to consider pain in another essay soon. The hurt pain causes is all too often much exaggerated. Pain is like salt: too much kills, but so does none.

A reader on Aeon, Fiona Sgurr, send me the following communication:

“You may wish to draw upon the reference that I did in response to a fervent follower of this life-denying philosophy that seeks to hoodwink the gullible and vengeful: Article 16 from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds:

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”

Impossible to make a case for a philosophy that is in direct contravention of the internationally recognized laws that state what is the basic level of decency for human relations. The fact that Benatar and his acolytes attempt to make this a moral argument would be laughable if it were not so malevolent.”

I agree with Fiona, and go even further that it is such a level of malevolence that legal action should be considered. Hitler wanted to exterminate some human groups. To so he was helped by philosophy professors such as Martin Heidegger and Alfred Rosenberg.  Alfred Rosenberg, was condemned to death during the Nuremberg trial. It was agreed that Rosenberg “had a decisive role in shaping Nazi philosophy and ideology”.
Philosophy can kill.

Professor Benatar suggest to exterminate not just a few human groups, as the Nazis did in secret, but all human groups, and in public. This is even worse than the worst the Islamist State ever publicly said. It shouldn’t be tolerated any more, in any sense.

Patrice Ayme’

Tags: , ,

28 Responses to “University Professor Calls For Global Genocide”

  1. Gmax Says:

    Seduction of genocide never dead, that’s the Anglos for you, and that’ s how it is. That jerk is the scariest thing this side of Adolf Hitler, even worse than Islamic State

    Like

  2. DaniLee Says:

    And, yet, another person completely misses the point. Everyone always wonders why anti-natalists seem to have a holier-than-thou air about them. Well, it’s because we’re the only ones that get it. We in no way, shape, or form promote genocide or even suicide for that matter. It’s strictly a no procreation philosophy with HIGH HOPES that the human race will go extinct and hopefully sooner than later.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Hi Danilee! Wonderful to get someone on this site who wants to out-exterminate the Nazis themselves, and not so implicitly tells me that I cause “serious harm”. At least, when the Nazis wanted to kill the Jews they tried to justify themselves!
      Geno-cide means kills the genes. That’s exactly what anti-natalists promote, for the whole human race, not just some sub-ethnicity as is the usual excuse in haters of humanity.
      I am surprised that you don’t understand that it is genocide. The UN Article 2 is very clear.
      And what is it you get? That when the UN says it’s genocide and you say it’s not, the UN get it, and you don’t?
      Fundamentally professor Benatar is just an over-sensitive coward, it’s very clear from his writing. Should one pinch his bottom, his pain would be so unbearable, that he would immediately want to die, one reckons. Silly stuff.

      But also murderous stuff. I think that, by justifying genocide in general, some people are actually thinking about killing colored Africans, some of whom have exaggerated, I must admit, natalities (such as 8 children per woman, as found in desertic, dessicating Niger…)

      Like

      • Cag Johnson Says:

        I think some anti-natalists recognize the immense damage humans have been and will continue to do to the biosphere, which unchecked will destroy not only human civilization, but uncountable other species. That humans haven’t already destroyed the planet( via nuke war) is simply luck. Genocide is in our genes.

        Like

        • Patrice Ayme Says:

          Hello Cag. Sorry for the delay, from now on your comments will appear immediately. The argument that human population can kill the biosphere and thus humans should kill most of the human population, I have made myself, for many years, and thus it makes “genocide in our genes”. As I tweeted: Humans can kill the environment, thus should kill most humans first. Such is the evolutionary basis that makes “genocide in our genes”!However that’s not the argument “bioethics” Benatar from South Africa makes. In his case it’s all about ill defined “harm”. In my comments in Aeon I sketched my pain thesis, that pain is not as bad as claimed by the over-sensitive ones.
          A week where I have not suffered is not up to snuff…

          Like

  3. Paul Van Uytrecht Says:

    Paul Van Uytrecht
    That’s nonsense – wanting to destroy out-groups is not the same as wishing for the extinction of the species as a whole. But this is off-point anyway – the topic is whether it is moral to bring NEW beings into existence.

    Like

  4. Chris Rogers Says:

    “Wanting to destroy humanity is not a new instinct, it’s the oldest most specifically human instinct. It’s instructive to see it rolled out by others than Nazis, Khmer Rouge, or the Islamist State.”

    chris rogers 20 October 2017
    Yes it is. First it starts as a purely intellectual pursuit. Then the “smart” people begin to believe that they can craft a better more “civilized” world if only they had the power to make everyone live according to their dictates. Then, when someone ruthless enough to try to live out that fantasy comes along, you get the mass graves.

    Like

  5. Paul Van Uytrecht Says:

    The flaw in your arguments is that you continue to equate anti-natalism with genocide or extinctionalism – they are not at all the same, and to argue as if they were, is intellectually dishonest. There is something stomach-turning in your attempt to equate Prof Benatar with Nazis.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Total “anti-natalism” brings genocide: a physical fact. There is something stomach turning with those wanting to annihilate the human race, even more than with those who want to eliminate specific “races”. Indeed. You call me “intellectually dishonest” because I equate the “extinction of genes (aka “anti-natalism”) with genocide or extinctionalism”.

      However, that is exactly what the United Nations did. And the reason the UN did this is that the Nazis, indeed, practiced “anti-natalist” policies first to habituate the public to “anti-natalist” policies. Vigorously. Professor Benatar is fully in the tradition of Nazi professors who advocated “anti-natalist” when Adolf Hitler was president and chancellor of Germany. Indeed, those policies got in full swing in 1937, so there is nothing really original about parroting the same theses 80 years later.

      Like

  6. Patrice Ayme Says:

    [Sent to Aeon]
    Total “anti-natalism” brings genocide: a physical fact. There is something stomach turning with those wanting to annihilate the human race, even more than with those who want to eliminate specific “races”. The United Nations includes the “extinction of genes (aka “anti-natalism”) with genocide or extinctionalism”.

    Besides the physical fact that total antinatalism is genocide, a reason the UN did this is that the Nazis, indeed, practiced “anti-natalist” policies first to HABITUATE the public to genocidal policies. One may suspect what we are witnessing here, is more of the same. Professor Benatar is fully in the tradition of Nazi university professors who advocated “anti-natalism” when Adolf Hitler was president and chancellor of Germany. Indeed, those “antinatalist” policies got in full swing in 1937, so there is nothing really original about parroting the same theses 80 years later. That Benatar is general, and the Nazis were more … specific, is rather more embarrassing.

    Benatar argues that coming into existence is a serious harm, regardless of the feelings of the existing being once brought into existence, and that, as a consequence, it is always morally wrong to create more sentient beings. That was written in 2017, but there is nothing new about it!

    The argument rolled out by Benatar is exactly the fundamental argument the Nazis used against those they didn’t like: their coming into existence had been a serious harm, regardless of their feelings. And this was not just what happened with the Nazis: this entire Anglo-Saxon doctrine is prominent in the Bible where “god” exterminates entire ethnicities just because their existence is viewed as a “serious harm”. This is actually where the Nazis got their inspiration, they claimed.

    Like

  7. Paul Van Uytrecht Says:

    Paul Van Uytrecht
    If you cannot see the difference between Genocide (“any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”) and a philosophical argument that holds that it is, on balance, unethical for any human to have children then any further discussion is a waste of time. Professor Benatar nowhere argues that forcible measures should be adopted against any national, ethnical, racial or religious group to prevent them from procreation. You know this, and yet you persist with the scurrilous assertion that Professor Benatar is akin to a nazi and that he is calling for global genocide.

    I have nothing more to say to an alt-right troll.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      I find interesting, not to say droll, that you confess to engage with “alt-right troll”.
      On a more serious note, the debate is that you claim Benatar ONLY makes a “philosophical argument”. One of the philosopher of the Nazis, Alfred Rosenberg, was condemned to death during the Nuremberg trial. It was agreed that Rosenberg “had a decisive role in shaping Nazi philosophy and ideology”.
      Philosophy can kill.
      “Philosopher” Rosenberg was hanged, October 16, 1946.
      The UN says that it’s genocide in particular when:
      “…deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part1; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group…”
      The question then becomes whether Benatar “deliberately inflicts conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole…”
      There is little doubt that Benatar advocates the “physical destruction of humanity in whole”. So the question is whether the deliberate Benatar “inflicts conditions”.
      If one came to a bridge where someone is close to jumping, and one said: you cause “serious harm” it would be better if you were dead, and it would be immoral for you to have children, that would be certainly viewing as incitement to suicide, which is a crime.
      Nowadays, humanity, in more ways than one, is on the verge of suicide, from climate change, nuclear weapons, all sorts of damage to the environment. So when Benatar suggests that humanity should stop existing, he is inciting the near-suicidal to actually go extinct. “Philosophy” made to kill. And not just to kill one person, but everybody’s hope and future, the little ones of tomorrow.

      Benatar is also imposing PSYCHOLOGICAL measures intended to prevent birth within ALL human groups.
      One may wonder why someone would be so full of hatred for humanity as to wish its extinction.
      The answer can be found in Hitler’s testament: at the very end of his life, April 1945, Adolf Hitler hated everybody, even the Germans. There is nothing to say to that loser, indeed: he was not strong enough for the beauty of life and thought. Hitler wanted to extinguish some human groups, and that made him whom many consider the worst. How to we qualify someone who wants to extinguish ALL human groups?

      Like

  8. Fiona Sgurr Says:

    Fiona Sgurr
    You may wish to draw upon the reference that I did in response to a fervent follower of this life-denying philosophy that seeks to hoodwink the gullible and vengeful: Article 16 from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds:

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”

    Impossible to make a case for a philosophy that is in direct contravention of the internationally recognized laws that state what is the basic level of decency for human relations. The fact that Benatar and his acolytes attempt to make this a moral argument would be laughable if it were not so malevolent.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Excellent Fiona, thanks a lot! I didn’t know. I will make a note of it in my essay on my site. I believe that, actually, this is, as with the Nazis, or the Americans in preceding centuries just another of these Trojan Horses where a reason, somewhat, somehow is found to extinguish races (to use the lousy concept they have in mind) or ethnicities that they don’t like. Indeed Benatar is from South Africa, where many people of many ethnicities would find the place to be nicer if some other groups existed in smaller numbers…

      Like

  9. Fiona Sgurr Says:

    Thank you Patrice and likewise. I believe we are on the threshold of another dark time for human development and progress. As I said in one of my first posts on this horrendous topic I recognize a pattern in this, one that is horribly familiar. Though I was born some time after WWII, my father fought in that war and I had many conversations with him regarding the rise of fascism. Never forget, never again.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Fiona: Thanks to you, again! One of my uncle fought the Nazis seven years in 1939-1945 (he was a French army officer, fought in 39-40, but then was not captured and joined the Free French). My drafted father spent several years in uniform, and saw combat twice, Nazi jet bombers involved, in Italy, then landed in Provence, etc. On my mother side, they saved more than 100 Jews, sheltering them for years, 6 to 9 at a time, taking incomprehensible risks. Others in my family got killed, some while in uniform, in combat.

      My other uncle who was like a big brother to me, while in uniform fell in an Islamist ambush, and was killed (long story).

      So I take the rising of these same old demons seriously. It’s good Aeon has the courage to publish this. But I am surprised that people like that I can rise to professorship, anywhere in the world… And especially in South Africa, considering the history of extremism there.

      Like

  10. Patrice Ayme Says:

    AEON CENSORED my comments on professor Benatar:
    ***
    Aeon Support (support@aeon.co)
    To:you Details
    Dear Patrice Ayme,

    Part of your comments have been removed because they contravened our community guidelines.

    For your reference these were:

    Professor Benatar is fully in the tradition of Nazi professors who advocated “anti-natalist” when Adolf Hitler was president and chancellor of Germany. Indeed, those … so there is nothing really original about parotting the same theses 80 years later.

    Professor Benatar is fully in the tradition of Nazi university professors who advocated “anti-natalism” when Adolf Hitler was president and chancellor of Germany. Indeed, those “antinatalist” policies got in full swing in 1937, so there is nothing really original about parroting the same theses 80 years later. That Benatar is general, and the Nazis were more … specific, is rather more embarrassing.

    The question then becomes whether professor Benatar “deliberately inflicts conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole…”

    There is little doubt that Benatar advocates the “physical destruction of humanity in whole”. So the question is whether the deliberate Benatar “inflicts conditions”.

    So when professor Benatar suggests that humanity should stop existing, because it’s so harmfull, he is inciting the near-suicidal to actually go extinct.

    Benatar is also imposing PSYCHOLOGICAL measures intended to prevent birth within ALL human groups.

    One may wonder why someone would be so full of hatred for humanity as to wish its extinction.

    How to we qualify someone who wants to outdo Hitler himself, and extinguish ALL human groups?

    While we encourage robust engagement with the argument presented by the author, we do not allow ad hominem attacks on any of our users, including authors. Further comments in this vein will be removed and your account will be suspended. If you’d like to know more, please read through the guidelines.

    Thank you for your understanding.

    The Aeon team

    Like

  11. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Answer to Aeon CENSORSHIP about the fact that professor Benatar, who wants to extinguish all of humanity, is just repeating what the Nazis made official, starting in 1937:
    ***
    Dear Aeon Moderation Team:
    I completely disapprove of ad hominem “attacks”. They are a distraction, and they intimate honest debate, if nothing else. Thus I am surprised that I get accused of having committed some. And I was completely baffled by the alleged “attacks” quoted back to me. Some of those “ad hominem attacks” are historical facts about the Nazis. Denying them is Holocaust Denial. I thought I had stuck to the facts. I am thoroughly confused about why a description of Mr. Benatar’s position, the extinction of all human genes, is viewed as an “ad hominem attack”. Professor Benatar states that “having children is a serious harm”, he wants humanity not to have children anymore, I describe a consequence: the extinction of humanity in general (and Aeon in particular). A fact is not an insult. Professor Benatar states, I describe his statements.

    Is then Aeon’s position that Nazi Germany didn’t practice “antinatalist” policies in 1937? (As this was apparently censored.) An Internet search, or historical knowledge, shows the opposite.
    Is the Aeon moderation team claiming there were no Nazi professors advocating antinatalist policies? Or maybe no Nazi professors, many of them authors, and that it is an “ad hominem attack against authors” to claim otherwise? This is surrealistic.
    Is the Aeon moderation team claiming it is an “ad hominem attack” to observe that… Nazi university professors [who] advocated “anti-natalism” when Adolf Hitler was president and chancellor of Germany. Indeed, those “antinatalist” policies got in full swing in 1937. If I understand well Aeon censored the facts I just described. Why is it so important to deny historical Nazi reality and present it as an “ad hominem attack”?
    Does the Aeon moderation team feel it is an “ad hominem attack… against an author” to be informed that Nazis practiced “antinatalist” policies by 1937?

    I really don’t understand: is Aeon position that having no more children, as prof. Benatar advocates, will not lead to the extinction of humanity? That having no more children will not lead to the destruction of humanity as a whole? Is also Aeon’s position that when prof. Benatar tells all humans they “cause serious harm” he is not inflicting a dangerous mental hardship on all of humanity?

    I am not trying to be belligerent. I am trying to understand why I am told I “attack ad hominem”. I am trying to understand why I am viewed having committed a bad act.
    The Nazis claimed that some human groups caused “serious harm”, and applied various pressures, including antinatalist pressures, to make them go away (years later the people Nazis said inflicted serious harm became the object of a “final solution”)

    I am grateful for the work Aeon is doing and its openness. To have an entire essay advocating the eradication of humanity is courageous and original. However, if commenters describe it as it is, they shouldn’t be censored. To just let professor Benatar explains he wants to do away with humanity because it “causes serious harm”, and censor commenters who said the exact same arguments were rolled out against specific groups 80 years ago is asymmetric.

    I am really trying to understand your position. My specifically censored comments were in answer to personal attacks against me made by another contributor. I didn’t mind these attacks, and didn’t answer with ad hominem counterattacks, because I relished the occasion to make my position against Benatar’s outrage clearer. And it is this enlightenment of my position that Aeon censored, because the moderation team decided I had made “ad hominem attacks” by describing the situation of a professor who attacks ALL of humanity, ad hominem, by saying it causes “serious harm”, and then reveals a method for its complete extinction which is presented as a remedy to “serious harm”.

    Thus you cannot have my understanding, because I do NOT UNDERSTAND what I did that was wrong and brought censorship and a threat of “further comments in this vein will be removed and your account will be suspended.”
    As I only quoted facts (show me where I did not), to tell me that facts can lead to suspension is highly intimidating. It kills debate. I personally find professor Benatar’s view to be promoting the extinction of humanity, but if I send a comment to this effect, now I fear I will be banned from Aeon. Can Aeon tell me how professor Benatar does not promote the extinction of humanity? And can Aeon tell me how censoring those who describes what he says, does not bring the end of all and any honest debate?

    I have a website with nearly 30,000 comments over ten years. I put a commenter under supervision only once (he was apparently deranged). I make a point of publishing ALL comments, including death threats (against me and threats of group extinction). HOWEVER, I always reply to outrageous comments, and don’t hold back. I would only censor comments which are clearly unlawful.

    As I reviewed the sentences Aeon censored, again and again, word by word, the only word that I can view as disparaging is the word “parotting”. I should arguably have used “duplicating”. However having read thousands of pages of Nazi original documents in the preceding decades (I speak German), the concept of “parrot” came to my mind naturally.

    I want to achieve understanding, though, so I would be delighted to be shown how it is that I “attacked”.

    I would appreciate a serious answer. When I write to Aeon, I write very seriously, and I was taking, until today, Aeon for a serious publication. I wish this would continue, and that Aeon could stick to ideas instead of threatening authors. As I am at it, at least once someone who was using interestingly weak arguments against my position on stoicism (in the Massimo Pigliucci essay) was censored by Aeon moderation in a reply he made to me. The result is that I never saw his answer, including the emotional state in which i put him, something I regret, because it would have revealed a lot.

    The spread of knowledge and a cosmopolitan worldview, creating a sanctuary online for serious thinking cannot go without serious friction (try an essay on Israel to confirm this). Maybe a solution would be to have to click on comments deemed offensive to see them (they would not appear automatically, similar to the more… device). However, censoring facts (like the Nazis antinatalist policies of 1937) is no way to establish a sanctuary for serious thinking.

    Sorry to have been so extensive in my answer. However, I used to view Aeon as a delicious sanctuary. Some publications have never censored me, not even once, over the last few decades (including The Economist and the Wall Street Journal, neither of which pretends to be a sanctuary of ideas). Even though I stridently condemned them for, say, supporting the attacks on Iraq (in 2003 and earlier). I prefer it that way, while I make every effort to be honest, thorough, straight and true. I can’t do this if I know that next time I roll out a true fact about the vicious policies of the Nazis, I know it may lead to the suspension of my account for “ad hominem attacks”.

    Kind Regards,
    Patrice Ayme

    Like

  12. Patrice Ayme Says:

    Aeon censored (“moderated”) the information that the Nazis practiced antinatalist policies in 1937, and threatened to suspend my account if I repeated this assertion.

    Like

    • Jan Sand Says:

      That has odd implications.

      Like

      • Patrice Ayme Says:

        Yes, I was stunned. And this is the very first time Aeon censored me, EVER. I view such a censorship of an historical fact about the Nazis as Holocaust denial. I sent several pages of protest to the Aeon moderation team. Two weeks ago a ex-Google and now Facebook executive told me that Google should pay NO taxes in France, because France helped Hitler (in other words, all values and facts inverted!) It all fits together.

        Like

  13. Aeon Support Says:

    Hi Patrice. We have replied to your first post regarding the partial moderation of your comment.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      OK, thank you very much, Aeon Support. I will give some time to search for that answer, when I find it. The whole thing can only be a misunderstanding as I did not make an “ad hominem attack” against an author. Or then the notion of “attack” has to include any criticism.

      Like

  14. Aeon Support Says:

    Dear Patrice,

    We maintain that the fragments of your comments that were moderated were removed because they were ad hominem attacks on the author.

    Unfortunately, even reasonable comments entangled with ad hominem attacks will be removed. If you review the comments in this thread, and your own commenting history, you will recognise that several comparisons with genocidal practices remain, including comparisons between the anti-natalist argument and anti-natalist/ genocidal policies of Nazism.

    Indeed your response to Paul Van Uytrecht, made on the 30th October, remains: ‘And the reason the UN did this is that the Nazis, indeed, practiced “anti-natalist” policies first to HABITUATE the public to genocidal policies. Vigorously. [Part of this comment has been moderated because it contravenes community guidelines] ”Anti-natalist” policies got in full swing in 1937.’

    You are welcome to re-post your comment regarding Nazi anti-natalist policies in 1937, providing they are not ad hominem in nature. We welcome robust debate, but will remove comments where they attack the author.

    We hope you’ll continue to enjoy Aeon and the conversations channel.

    Like

    • Patrice Ayme Says:

      Dear Aeon Support: I am still completely confused by Aeon Support’s statements and how they relate to what I wrote. Basically, it seems to be that Aeon Support let the public guess that I said that an author at Aeon was a Nazi. I didn’t assert, or insinuate such a thing. Absolutely not. As I explained to Aeon Support I view “ad hominem attacks” against authors a waste of time, and a diversion, if nothing else.

      Although I made no “ad hominem attack” against professor Benatar, WHATSOEVER, “Aeon Support” amusingly overlooked a pure insult against me completely mischaracterizing what I stand for. (Never mind, I would be sorry if the insult against me were removed! It’s a badge of honor!)

      Insults mischaracterize by depicting someone has somebody, or something repulsive. Maybe because i described professor Benatar’s position all too well, Aeon Support was repulsed? What was censored is that I said an author was fully in a tradition established 80 years ago. As simple as that. As true as that.

      I have a copy of another apparently censored comment which was very long and included an “ad hominem attack” against one “author”. Indeed. However that author was Adolf Hitler, the antinatalist author of “Mein Kampf”!!!!!!!!!! Does Aeon mean that attacks against that particular author and his ilk will be “moderated”?

      The fact remains that it is asserted that I made an “ad hominem attack”, and all I did was to describe the wish, publicly expressed by an author at Aeon and his friends, to discourage a human group to reproduce. That is viewed as genocide by United Nations law in several places.

      ***

      Article 16 from the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights holds:

      (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family.”

      To assert that would cause “serious harm” is to say a basic human right causes “serious harm”.

      ***

      Clearly, professor Benatar and his friends inflict MENTAL HARM to those who want to be parents, prepare to be parents, and are parents, by telling them they cause “serious harm”. This imposes conditions conducive to the physical destruction of humanity. Mental conditions, indeed, yet, conditions nevertheless. It imposes mental measures, an ad hominem attack on the greatest author of them all, humanity.

      The UN General Assembly 260 A, article 2, the convention on genocide, says, among other things, that it
      defines genocide as…

      (b)
      Causing serious
      bodily or
      mental harm
      to members of the group;

      (c) Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;

      (d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;

      Like

What do you think? Please join the debate! The simplest questions are often the deepest!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: