Antinatalism The imposition argument is an important argument used by antinatalists to further promote all subsequent occurrences in one's life as reducible to their pro-generation being an imposition. This video clearly shows that the premise "Procreation is Imposition" is an arbitrary equivalence, or more rightly a poetic/politically based premise from which (their) further arguments follow. The six videos I've produced on the topic are as follows: 1- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uBIAF3HleQ 2- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iC57MwaJbb8 3- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L1WdayZmPk 4- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGjLVAuYvOE 5- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwGWn3I47XA 6- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8X3YGOZyr0 All images were nabbed from a google or youtube search. www.google.com youtube.com ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8X3YGOZyr0

... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50x28FdkIyo

Ghosts vs Spirit ) vs other /neither ] vs else specific words, are replaced by other words as tangential points between differing paradigms, and these points seem to imbue different of political directives. As if two bubbles where bound together. No one denies that the medium of the bubbles is not the same, that they are bubbles is not the difference I'm focusing on, but that the interiority of one bubble does not denote the interiority of the other. A life worth leading is what is being put forth in Pro Antons vids and he has found virtue exemplified through certain authorial scripts and wants us to join him in seeing his politic in a certain way. In an almost undeniable way of self inclusion. Of listening and becoming like this and not like that. I understand this lassoing in this gravity at the center of bubbles the center of a tree or the center of a cannon. So Listen but be wary of it's seductive quality and it's lexicon of agreement. A type of truth is truth by agreement. Perhaps Richard Rorty Neo pragmatism would be a good read for those falling within groups who would rather remain undifferentiated. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XZY9jmPoDd4

informal "sets": Corey's argument was: (((--~all languages, all humans, facts about language, facts about us, We are all like this ~--))) Corey's concession became: (Piraha, animals ) ~--((--~all modern languages, all western humans, facts about recursive language, facts about us moderns, We moderns are all like this ~--))) My Argument is: ({non recursive set} piraha)~--All Languages, all humans,--~(--~facts about modern language, [-~Recursive set~-} facts about us moderns, We moderns are like this ~-)~-- We are all like this.-~~-)-~({non recursive speculative set})) All I wanted (& finally got) out of Corey and anyone else who generalizes humans or language is a qualifier like: Moderns, westerns, recursive, those of us who would be likely to see this video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YrbDtZKmFLs at 740 you claim language (at large) is historical, when Everett suggests otherwise 850 "YOu didn't like the math" then at 914 "aren't ALL people to the extent that they speak able to do math?" Well the answer to that question is NO. And so you in a later video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSTE01t6kjU at 850 you contract your claims of language to "those people who would be watching this video" hence not those Other humans or languages that wouldn't be watching. ~--it's a contraction to Western Moderns, no? Yet you framed it in such a way that I don't seem to "be able to understand". How underhanded. You just won't outwardly concede or contract a claim and you certainly wouldn't do so by putting someone else in a highlight. ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAJb6dyXNxk