It's pretty telling that you think there's no chance that anyone who doesn't like your arguments is acting in good faith. I say that as someone who actually agrees that we should (probably, pop. ethics is hard!) reject total utilitarianism on the grounds that bringing someone into existence is just obviously less important than preventing a death, and that this means that longtermist are calling for important resource to be misallocated. (That is true of any false view about how EA resources should be spent though!). But I find your general tone of 'people have reasons to be biased against me so therefore nobody can possibly disagree with me in good faith or non-fanatically' extraordinarily off-putting, and think it's most likely effect is to cause a backfire where people in the middle move towards the simple total utilitarian view.
It's pretty telling that you think there's no chance that anyone who doesn't like your arguments is acting in good faith. I say that as someone who actually agrees that we should (probably, pop. ethics is hard!) reject total utilitarianism on the grounds that bringing someone into existence is just obviously less important than preventing a death, and that this means that longtermist are calling for important resource to be misallocated. (That is true of any false view about how EA resources should be spent though!). But I find your general tone of 'people have reasons to be biased against me so therefore nobody can possibly disagree with me in good faith or non-fanatically' extraordinarily off-putting, and think it's most likely effect is to cause a backfire where people in the middle move towards the simple total utilitarian view.