/lit/ - Literature

>>19281612
The only problem with antinatalism is that it is impractical and all intelectual arguments of every pretentious college professor, every pessimistic writer, every bitter anon no matter how true they seem and how consistent with premises of said philosophical view are going to be refuted by a practical act. A simple act of reproduction that can be performed by union of almost any two retards. There exist contradictions in your arguments that can't be ignored, first of all you can't at the same time be an adherent of determinism and voluntary rationalism/metaphysical libertarianism of any kind. You need to understand that it's impossible to explain even the basics of antinatalism to certain amounts of people, and just like basic algebra problem or simple puzzle they would find it incomprehensible and so unconvinced wouldn't even try to accept the lifestyle you propose. So, what's the alternative? You cannot logically dissuade a bulky downie from molesting his caretaker but you can always beat him with a stick and scare him with sky daddy's wrath to ensure submission. So, the answer. Enforcement. By who? You? Me? No, powerful people, institutions such as governments. And if you were to expect their involvement we have another contradiction. You want to ask people who are at best pragmatists, at worst sadists but above all greedy bastards to give up their fortunes and their own social standing. Why would those people help with your cause? They thrive because of suffering, misery and hard work of the averege and bellow, sure they may give some money to charity to feel better about themselves but they don't want any actual change of status quo when they are on the top. The rulers can't be angels and devils at the same time. And all of them would have to agree with you because as it stands today having a child is universally a: "basic human right" that only a "mad tyrant" could try to prohibit. So now when it comes to general population your argument fails for yet another contradiction, you said that moral realism and absolutism don't exist yet you want people to act "good"/be melioristic. How the mediocre differ from elite? Are they better people? On average maybe less psychopathic, narcissistic and power hungry, but they are also weaker, less healthy, less wealthy, dumber and uglier so in short, less competent and more desperate. But are they any less hedonistic (in a broad sense)? No, everyone is hedonistic, seeks satisfaction and validation(at least internally) and for many that's enough of a justification, alongside domination(ruling over helpless child), fulfillment, feelings of safety for the future etc. and if the masses are not just selfish but also two faced and insincere why would they follow your beliefs by proxy? You won't convert any psychopathic nihilist, religious schizophrenic, simplistic moron, strinerist pedophile or conformist coward to your side with your rationality.
Cont.

>>18930945
Women like her are like a living sunk cost fallacy. They never own up to any of their bad decisions so they just continuously make more bad decisions and dial up their cope to compensate while blaming others. Lainey Molnar is the textbook example. It's really obvious she is unbelievably fucked in the head and that comic is a great example of why women need to settle down in their 20s, because if they don't, they accumulate a critical mass of baggage while continuing to do the standard procedure of blaming others and not taking responsibility as well as aging and being slammed in the face by a harsher reality than they've ever dealt with before. The end result is it sends them completely off the reservation at supersonic speeds. I fully believe you could and maybe should have a woman like her committed at this point.

>>18826534
How is the mode there when your very life force is composed of debilitating genes and all of the idiots around want more to share the same pain?
If society no longer has the courage to opt them out, we should at least have the humility to give them a choice.

You can ask me anything btw.
Reminder that I have a sense of humor. Take one good look at the world today and say God doesn't have a sense of humor.

>>17973167
>>17973261
Being "undesirable" to women isn't a marker of being genetically deficient.
>sauce?
Look up Fisherian runaway. We have on record species that have went extinct because of female sexual selection of greatly exaggerated features, e.g. the Irish elk that got fucked by their overselected antlers.
Physical attractiveness is very weakly correlated with healthiness outside of extreme deformities. If genetic health was truly the concern then just as many women should be excluded from breeding as men are. But that clearly isn't the case, webm presented as evidence.

>>16972306
>written by a woman
Sexist
>published after 1950
Ageist
>genre fiction looking cover
Genreist

>>16226162
Explain this in your best prose

Also about breeders' selfishness and cruelty.

What are some philosophical works that explains how we got here?