/lit/ - Literature

>>15274366
Not if you beat me to the death bed! First one there is a rotten egg

>Finally a honest person. But surely you must see that preventing suffering is the least arbitrary because most living things abide by it.
They do so in order to live, which is an impulse that stems from the same hated "nature" that brought you the impulse to reproduce. Why should you follow it, and why should an argument ad populum (most follow it) convince me?

>it is the most sensical assumption to make
I don't see it as such, no. That is not self-evident. Further justification is needed.

>What a cruel game where everyone looses in the end.
The ages old question- "Is it better to live a hundred days as a sheep or ten days as a lion?" To be (risk) or not to be (not risk)? You can't impose your subjective belief that it is bad to risk on unborn children by not begetting them. What if they want to live and don't care about suffering? You see how absurd it is to care about the non-existent consent of a non-existent entity? Is the gun-maker responsible for making a gun that eventually kills an innocent, or is the wielder of the gun culpable? Is the parent who begets the child responsible or the person who causes his child to suffer? An imperfect analogy, but you get the idea.

>idc
Summarizes how I feel about not reproducing

>If pain is so great why is it even there...
Why does the biological human form have to survive? It will cause and feel great suffering, yet it wanting to survive justifies that. If mere want justifies actions, what's to stop me from reproducing because I want to?

>stick the maria statue up your butt
I'd stick it up yours, but I'm afraid you'd enjoy it