/lit/ - Literature

>>14897161
Wouldnt it be called "white Timocracy". I believe Plato enjoyed the idea of a timocratic governance

>>14894153
Hooray! You just noticed that the process of dieing CAN be harmful. I simply illustrated a death that isnt in anyway harmful the obejct. What did i show you? That killing is not necessarily harmful. Just as can count numerous painful death i could do aswell for the opposite. Same goes for rape(women can enjoy it and do so occasionally), death of loves one. Its futile to argue about particulars without discussing the metaphysics first. You dont ubderstand anti natalism at all and at the same time boldly defending this philosophy. Get off /lit/ start reading a book.

>>14893986
Nigga please, why dont you open a fucking book and read instead of posting this bullshit.
everything you just posted is simply expressed by state A better than state B. The assymetry between the two states is harm. its the relation of two states. You didnt even understand the initial question.
> being killed
this is not harm. If some sniper gave a you a perfect headshot right now, you would die and dont feel any pain. No harm would be done to you because you transition from a state A to nothing. you cant make a qualititive jugdment of nothing ala good or bad. Therefore no harm was done.
Lets keep discussing OP inital quote.

>>14893895
arent virtue ethic ala aristo and aquin non-consequentialist ?

>>14893935
i take this but without the poo smear

>>14893475
this so fucking much.
>>14893468
>refute him
Noone is harmed by the act of birth. What is harm? Harm is only relative. Being harmed means transition from place A to a less desirbale place B. The problem with your qoute is that you cant compare non-existence with existence. the state of non-existence cant be good, better, bad or worse because its non existent. Birth is only state A from which from which a less desirable state B can follow. Mind you, i deliberately said "can". It doesnt follow that a state B MUST occur.
A different meaning of harm could be an unfullfilledness of desire(according to big boy Shopi). Here again, the same logic follows. in a state of non-existence there are no desires that can go unfullfilled. You see harm is again a relation between to states. The striving state A and fullfilment state B. You dont strive to be born or not to be born before you even exist. There never was a state A, a state of striving, therefore no desire was there to be squandered.
You cant be harmed by coming into existence. However existence is the necessary condition for harm. Its a logical leap however that each and every life must be harmful and therefore undesirble.

English is not my first language, bare with me

>>14893460
YOU WILL NEVER BE ACCEPTED BY WHITE WOMAN

>>14892327
Dr. Memerson would call it cultural stoicism

>>14892236
Hunger by Knut Hamsun

>>14892877
>read finnegans wake with ease
Looking at words doesnt count as reading

>>14888224
>bin Laden
>taliban
i hate you burgers

>>14887889
>shaking reason
no. Its all about the premises you value and extrapolate rules from. The Anti-natalist simply thinks that eliminating suffering is the primary principle. This is also known as negative utilitarianism.
Like anyone else in this thread, uncluding OP, none of you actually tried to understand the anti natalist view.
im not an anti natalist btw

How do i know whether my short stories are good enough? I dont want to email agents, bothering them with subpar pieces and burning down all my chances in the future.