/lit/ - Literature

>>16826649
As if i needed to be more alone, people simply do not tolerate my points of view and behaviors
>>16826695
>According to what moral code? Who's the moralizer? Not the skydaddy, I presume?
>Nihilism destroys all possibility of establishing a meta-ethics and normative ethics. Therefore, my point still stands.
>Listen, if you're a nihilist, then birth neither has a positive nor negative value. Birth is an indifferent process much like everything else is the Universe from a nihilistic position. It's a logical implication of being a nihilist, morons. Therefore, you cannot argue for antinatalism
>To reiterate, a nihilistic universe does not permit for an antinatalist perspective because there is no compelling reason why parents should care for the suffering of their children since suffering does not have an inherently negative value. At most you can advise being child-free, but that's not a philosophical statement.
Suffering existing is not a philosophical statement, suffering and pleasure are all we know as bio-machines

> Even if you have a soteriology where this universe has far more evil like Mahayana Buddhism, antinatalism is still hard to justify because of complex and messy reasons.
Define these "complex reasons"?