/lit/ - Literature

Natalist can't cope with the OBJECTIVE truth that there is more unnecessary suffering in the world then there is pleasure. Life is OBJECTIVELY meaningless in the long run. Watch the cucks use transcedental arguments because they know very well that they can't disprove the claim in the scope of the material world.

>>14049759
not a day in your life can go by without the transcendental being present, it is an ordinary part of life

>>14049759
How do anti natalists cope with the fact that the unborn can't choose to live but the alive can choose to kill themselves?

>>14049759
Incel cope

>>14049759
But anon, suffering is good.

>>14049720
I have come to the belief that everyone else is pretending to be happy.

>>14049720
I was a natalist because I believed people like GigaChad existed. When I realized the truth I became an anti-natalist.

>>14049801
The unborn doesn't have to suffer because suffering is inherent in existence.
>>14049958
You can delude yourself into thinking that.
>>14049896
Not an argument kid.
>>14049777
Prove it

>>14049801
The alive will cause more suffering for those around them if they kill themselves.

>Im an antinatalist

>>14049759
>more suffering than pleasure means it aint worth it

What kind of utilitarian plebbery is this? Even if most of life is suffering, the joys are so wonderful that it more than makes up for it.

>>14049759
The depressive faggot who couldn't graduate from nihilism to existentialism like all big brain chads

Ecclesiastes 4

1 Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun:

I saw the tears of the oppressed—
and they have no comforter;
power was on the side of their oppressors—
and they have no comforter.
2 And I declared that the dead,
who had already died,
are happier than the living,
who are still alive.
3 But better than both
is the one who has never been born,
who has not seen the evil
that is done under the sun.

>>14050081
You live a very sheltered life if you believe the heights of joy can match the depths of despair. Joy is ephemeral while suffering is constant.

>>14050112
>like all big brain chads
Like the loser Nietzsche who said to affirm everything in life and yet in another passage says " I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. ". Big lol.

>>14050171
You just proved my point and didn't even realize it. So sad for you, anon.

>>14050200
Sure if your point is that existentialism is a cope for those who cannot fathom nothingness.

>>14050229
Oh anon

>>14050252
>Sweaty posting
An act of concession.

>>14050229
>Existentialism is a cope

>>14050318
The mere fact that nihilism 'needs' an antidote is an admission of defensive measure.

>>14050129
I'm on the verge of mental collapse most days so don't lecture me please

>>14050343
>I'm on the verge of mental collapse
You have yet to fall into the chasm or maybe you're just delusional.

>>14050006

>>14050371
Ive been there mister pity party. Now have some babies

>only natalist is a guy who is a myth, a meme, a joke

Seems fitting. Chad isn't real and he could be the only one naive enough to sponsor life.

>>14049759
big yikes

>>14050006

>>14050034
>suffering is inherent in existence.
Prove it.

Have anti natalists proven life is suffering yet? No? Have they even proven suffering is bad? Well then.
They're getting btfo yet again? Damn, guess I'll just wait for them to mount an actually viable argument...or not.

>>14049720
Because you’re a fucking meathead cumbrain who cannot understand the practical imperative.

>>14050059
You’re aware this dog is considered based and redpilled, right?

>>14050112
Antinatalism is by definition not nihilistic because it is an ethic and ethics presuppose the existence of axiology.

>>14050922
>Hey lets just say stupid things like up is down, 1 is 13 bad is good. Checkmate rationalists

>>14050968
Prove life is suffering. Prove suffering is bad. It's that simple, but you've never been able to do it.

>>14051031
Suffering is bad because by its very definition its bad. Trying to say suffering is good is just like truing to say bad is good. Besides I opt out of the whole suffering/pain and pleasure paradigm for a much less flexible harm/benefit one. What, are you going to say harm is good now too?

>>14051043
You can enjoy your suffering
Harm can be good

>>14051060
Harm is even more, by its definition bad. If you enjoy a harm, you’re either deluded (such as in addiction) or its not a harm, though it may fake the form of some kind of masochistic pain. You’re other question is a red herring as well. Life needn’t be looked at as a scale where the harm outweighs the benefit. The simple fact is that benefit will be defined by the essence of the being seeking the benefit. This means that nobody can benefit from their mere existence and that procreation cannot be considered a good for the person being brought into existence because the condition person’s existence must be met prior to them experiencing any benefit.

>>14051060
Then by definition its pleasure and not suffering.

>>14051088
Shit I used “you’re” in place of “your”. Watch now as my entire post is disregarded to pick away at this tiny fault.

>>14051088
>If you enjoy a harm, you’re either deluded (such as in addiction) or its not a harm, though it may fake the form of some kind of masochistic pain.
If a masochist gets shot in the leg and enjoy the pain, they enjoy harm. I’m not sure where you’re getting ‘deluded’ from. Is someone that enjoys pleasure deluded because they’re addicted to it?
>Life needn’t be looked at as a scale where the harm outweighs the benefit
I’m not a utilitarian
>The simple fact is that benefit will be defined by the essence of the being seeking the benefit.
Yes, and suffering can be in someone’s benefit.
>This means that nobody can benefit from their mere existence and that procreation cannot be considered a good for the person being brought into existence because the condition person’s existence must be met prior to them experiencing any benefit.
Why should their self-interest override mine?

>>14051097
Obviously a fucking moron

>>14050922
>i love suffering!

>>14051043
Suffering is usually self inflicted, it drives you towards self improvement. Without suffering there is no joy.
This is entry level shit, anon.

>>14051140
Yes, anyone who would point that out would be a moron. Glad to see you wholeheartedly agree with me.

>>14051155
Maybe in Tony Robbins’ Life Coaching but not in philosophy, kiddo. Besides I’ve been insisting on the term “harm”. I will hold no brief for a weaselly use of the word “suffering”. If a form of suffering brings an ultimate good, it is not a harm.

>>14051183
harm
/härm/
Learn to pronounce
noun
physical injury, especially that which is deliberately inflicted.

>>14051207
Okay, well that’s surprising. Obviously almost everyone is using it wrong. Okay then lets go with ‘detriment’. Obviously you’re not getting out of this one.

>>14051183
You are not "harmed" by feeling remorse because you fucked up. Suffering is the right word for it.

Cringe, yikes, have sex (but not literally)

How can I deny the wonders of the future people to experience them? How can I deny the striving of 4.5 billion years of my lineage to further itself? How can I regret the opportunity to experience the highs, the lows, and the delicious contrasts betwixt?

Antinatalists are people who have abandoned the future. Mourn them, for they are already dead.

>>14050034
He did prove it with his trips. A transcendental occurrence that was so ordinary you didn't notice it.

>>14051232
So even the word “detriment” referenced physical harm or damage. I really don’t think the obscurity of a word for something counts as an argument.

>>14051140
>U believe thing I don’t. U stupid!

I’d like to think I’ve grown beyond this level of rhetoric by now.

Whats the point of all this amassed knowledge? Do antinatalists just want to throw it all away?

>>14051671
Yes.

>>14049759
>waaaaaaah its toooo haaaaaaard

>>14051695
>weeeeeeeeee! Its so easy!

>>14051744
Who are you quoting? I couldn't imagine a successful man , or at least an aspiring one, to act and speak like you. You don't perform injustices to cure other injustices.

Can natalists just admit they only have children for their own selfish desires and leave it at that? Surely we can all agree that life is horrible, but that it occasionally has highs that push us to live? Can't we agree that some people don't often have highs or don't have them at all, and their suffering is great? It seems you all could get along if you'd concede that the other side has fair points.

>>14049759
Why do antinatalits assume that the universe in cleanly divided into "pleasure" and "suffering". Often the greatest pleasure either come from pain itself or the risk of pain. A world on unending torment or constant pleasure would really be the only possible worlds in which I would say is objectively meaningless.

Just personally I love life and wish I could live forever. I really wouldn't wish to stop any sort of pain that I've experienced. I like who I am and pain is instructive. Suffering is also usually rather temporary whereas my life is generally pleasurable. Perhaps when my spouse dies I will be incredibly sad but all of life is a wonderful experience and I don't want to miss out on any part.

If you don't feel that way then it's totally fine just don't use words like "objective".

>>14051149
>things are bad if i dont like them!

>>14052153
Take your meds