/lit/ - Literature

>>23263113
Hey dumbfuck, did you miss the part where I said a baby with cancer is inherently tragic? Jesus Christ you fuckers can’t even read. Let me spell this out for you in the most basic possible terms.

1. Human tragedy is proportional to the level of virtue, meaning, innocence, wisdom, beauty, or transcendence that inherent to its loss.
2. An anti-natalist feels misery or anger towards the unfairness of reality in proportion to the loss or suffering endured by subjects that exhibit these traits and the degree to which they express them.
3. This means the anti-natalist NECESSARILY ascribes value to humanity, because if he didn’t, there wouldn’t be a sense of unfairness.
4. Despite inherently ascribing value to humanity, (because his argument wouldn’t be consistent without it) he seeks to terminate it. THIS is the CONTRADICTION, retard.
5. If he ascribed no inherent value to a subject, his argument would be incoherent. Do you ever hear about an anti-natalist saying rocks shouldn’t exist because of the inherent suffering of their lives? No, because nobody ascribes meaningful traits of beauty, innocence, transcendence, etc. to fucking rocks. The argument would make no sense.

tl;dr - You’re a retard and have never actually thought about the principles behind your philosophy beyond Reddit talking points. You’re gay and retarded and you deserve your misery until you can learn to use your brain.

>struts and frets his hour upon the stage
>tells his tale, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing
>is heard from no more

>>21726920
>to appreciate this life you must focus on a life that isn’t this one
what in tarnation

>So how does this benefit me?