/lit/ - Literature

You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.

>>15273303
But even as a egoist, why would you care? You don't get unplugged yourself. You just never plug the unplugged.

>>15273290
Because antinatalism is end-game selfishness and many people are simply content with letting you snuff out your own genes because it's more convenient and time-efficient than persuading some narcissist to spread their genes.

>>15273290
Because it is the ultimate cuck movement. Literally taking the position to end your own genetic lineage while others, who don't share your braindead position continue getting busy

>>15273303
The greatest unplugging is suicide, but most people aren't ready to do it (anti-natalists).

>>15273290
This may hurt to hear because it's something you'll never get to experience, but having children is the most meaningful and rewarding project you can ever undertake. It is the central mechanism and purpose of life and that kind of integral part of human experience isn't going to be snuffed out by some losers who aren't even in a position to choose that for themselves telling other people not to have kids

It's based on arbitrary axioms.

Read shakespeare's sonnets

>>15273290
It’s refuted by biological determinism, which follows naturally from platonic, Aristotelian and spinozist philosophies. Also antinatalism is almost always either cope by losers or justification for hedonism. If life was actually suffering (it’s only suffering if you’re under extreme circumstances) antinatalists would kill themselves

>>15273290
Simple. Have sex!

>>15273290
We don’t need to come up with a refutation, the ‘antinatalists’ refute it themselves every day they don’t off themselves.

>>15273290
It has been refuted in every single thread you faggots make.
1) You can’t prove suffering since it is a subjective evaluation that means something different to every single person. You have to arrogantly proclaim that only your definition of it is true.
2) Existence is clearly better than nonexistence otherwise you would kill yourself (antinats weasel out of this by saying “but there is suffering in suicide”, yet they never have an answer to “wouldnt there be more suffering in continuing to exist?” since any answer would prove how arbitrary and subjective their evaluation of suffering actually is)
3) Antinat is cope for people who wouldnt pass on their genes anyway. They’re unhappy and “suffering” because nobody likes them, they’re virgins, they spend their whole day online, eating junk food, and reading books that confirm how terrible everything is.
4) all antinat theories are based in arbitrary axioms of morality that have been btfo’d by philosophers ever since Spinoza and Hume. This being the main reason that actual mainstream philosophic discussion has yet to engage with it.
5) Every antinat is also somewhat of an arrogant pseud who has to dismiss literally every person who says they enjoy life or are grateful to be alive by thinking that all of these people are decieving themselves and that they alone know the truth, even though the very premise of their philosophy is unprovable by any other means but sentimentalism (as understood by anyone has read any philosophy post 14th century)

Dont bother responding unless you’re going to address each of these points. Antinats are circlejerkers and never engage meaningfully in discussion 90% of the time. I will not bother engaging unless you effort post.

>>15273290
because antinatalism is an act of goodness, and most people are bad

>>15273391
>the most meaningful and rewarding project you can ever undertake
In what sense?

>>15273496
So what? Who will punish us if there is no God?

>>15273335
This obsession with "Spreading muh precious genes" seems far more narcissistic to me. Plus the sentiment "I am happy and like living therefore the unborn must also be" seems very ignorant and close minded.
>>15273339
Ok what does it matter? Antinatalist sentiment isn't guaranteed to be inherited by your children. And if you would have them it would implode your own argument. And then they are supposed to have antinatalist grandchildren? I don't get it...
>>15273391
How is it meaningful? It is just subjective feelings. And I know many parents who do not feel that way. Also it is very exploitative. You are damning your children to guaranteed suffering over some supposed feelings of fulfillment in life.
And then your children will have to do the same? It is a ponzy scheme!
Why do so many parents resent their children, abuse and belittle them then?
>loser
Loser how? Nice ad hominem anyway
>>15273407
How is pain is bad an arbitrary axiom?
It is the most realest of all! If you disagree set yourself on fire. Or pour acid on your face.
>>15273430
>If life was actually suffering (it’s only suffering if you’re under extreme circumstances) antinatalists would kill themselves

That is an unfair statement to make and you know it

>>15273484
*ring* *ring*

>>15273510
evil punishes itself, no need for God

>>15273290
>Why do people react so vigorously to me promoting their ethnic decay while I and filth alike live out our hedonist power fantasy made possible only by generations upon generations of those who were born, worked, lived and eventually gave life to those currently having to drag us around like an unproductive testicular cancer, yes I said testicular cancer, the only valid equivalent to a fat, disfunctional piece of dying cells dragging the entire living body into certain death because I've lulled myself into this weird notion that I have a right to do so and nobody will attempt to curb stomp me out of delusion

consent isn't real, it's a liberal invention. antinatalism is just late stage liberalism (abject life denial) and thus wrong, like all things that come from liberalism

>>15273521
>How is pain is bad an arbitrary axiom?
Pain is gain, bucko.

>>15273521
>This obsession with "Spreading muh precious genes" seems far more narcissistic to me.
It’s literally the purpose of life, there is probably a greater purpose beyond it but that is the bare minimum of purpose. The pursuit of self-gratification conducted by most people who don’t procreate is far more narcissistic
>That is an unfair statement to make and you know it
You still can’t refute my statement because you’re a pathetic faggot, if life was truly so much suffering that it cant continue then you would actually end it

>>15273557
the world is overpopulated, you don't need to reproduce, you do it out of narcissism

>>15273521
>spreading genes is more narcissistic than devoting your life to self-gratification
lmao

>you don't know your unborn child will be happy
The purpose of life is not happiness, hedonist.

>>15273577
>the world is overpopulated
India and China are overpopulated, Africa will be soon. Europe is not and won’t be if we stop importing foreign tards.
>you don't need to reproduce
You literally do in order to fully express your power of action and participate in the function of life

>>15273537
I don't see this happening in real life. There is no "atheistic karma" that exists. Furthermore, if you believe evil deserves to be punished, that destroys the argument that "I can't kill myself because my parents would suffer (though I doubt they'd even care)." The suffering you cause them is their punishment, therefore it is right to kill yourself. You will spare yourself from future suffering and you will also spare others from any other suffering you might've caused them.

>>15273577
You don't need to live

>>15273577
>the world is overpopulated

You don't know shit. You rely on numbers given to you by your masters and then use them as justification for your own selfishness. Has overpopulation ever stopped you from going to the grocery store? No. Has overpopulation ever prevented you from fulfilling your basic needs? No. Has overpopulation caused you significant distress? No.

Enjoy Hell.

>>15273290
It's never supported in a way that would allow refutation, the only way to talk it down is to take it on it's own emotional terms and let them know they're depressed autists.

>>15273577
>the world is overpopulated
This is factually not true, anon. Look it up. As far as living space is concerned most of the world is actually underpopulated, the problem is only in cities where people tend to concentrate, look at density maps of any country and you’ll see that if people had more distributed population habits, density wouldn’t be a problem. Also, enviornmentally, most of the pollution is causes by mass manufacturing and terrible regulations by companies and not by the average joe. Thirdly, as far as resources, that has to do more with economic dynamics of capitalism than with actual production. Americans and first worlders in genral have a surplus that if properly disteibuted could feed the hungry of the world, but the world runs of money so that doesnt happen, but technically it totally can. Overpopulation isnt a real thing yet.

>>15273599
>I will breed because China and India
grats, the planet will just die faster and all your offspring with it retard

>>15273484
>1) You can’t prove suffering since it is a subjective evaluation that means something different to every single person. You have to arrogantly proclaim that only your definition of it is true.
Completely retarded. We even have evidence for other animals feeling to be able to feel pain, especially special animals have been proven to grief for loved ones. You know that suffering is real unless you are a total psychopath. Claiming ignorance seems arrogant to me. And deciding for the unborn is too!
>2) Just kys haha
As a sentient live-form I am inherently extremely biased wanting to continue living and being attached to live and hopeful. You can always change your opinion and have children, you cannot reverse suicide.
>3) Repetetive ad hominem
cool
>4) all antinat theories are based in arbitrary axioms of morality
Avoiding suffering is the most consistent axiom that is
5) Every antinat is also somewhat of an arrogant pseud who has to dismiss literally every person who says they enjoy life or are grateful to be alive by thinking that all of these people are decieving themselves and that they alone know the truth, even though the very premise of their philosophy is unprovable by any other means but sentimentalism (as understood by anyone has read any philosophy post 14th century)
I am not. But I could say the same about you dismissing the suffering of others and the inherit potential of suffering. By breeding you are arrogantly choosing for the unborn. So you get to have that extreme kind of dominion but when I antinatalist make arguments "it is just too much"

Antinats are circlejerkers and never engage meaningfully in discussion 90% of the time.
In my experience it is the natalists who repeatetly spew the same haha kys and loser haha.

>>15273391
>dumb primate mindlessly propagates himself like every other species on the planet
>DUDE THIS IS SO MEANINGFUL I FEEL REALLY FULFILLED YOU WONT GETTIT I'M SPECIAL BECAUSE I FOLLOWED MY GENETIC PROGRAMMING TO SQUIRT SEMEN INSIDE PUSSY

>>15273633
>haha the planet is not overpopulated

>can't afford a house
>can't get a job
>eating bug insects
>lives in a rented 20 square meters commie apartment

>>15273607
>though I doubt they'd even care
Theeere weeee go!!!
It's another angsty teen thread, his parents are probably divorced and his boyfriend left him.

>>15273290
literature board

>>15273645
No, I will breed because it’s one of the reasons I exist. I don’t need to worry about overpopulating my country because I’m not a pajeet or batmooncher
>>15273646
Suffering exists, that doesn’t mean that it’s the dominant experience of life for anyone other than pathetic faggot losers and those in extreme situations

>>15273671
If you live in Europe or USA you consume far more resources than indian or chinese so you should not reproduce for the good of everyone

>>15273649
>wooohooo you're just an ape, look how you behave, like an animal, following base instinct, nononono its just your frontal cortex and shieeet, I should know because I can percieve at a chemical level since that time I tried to suicide with my sisters hormone blockers, but I'm not dead, I'm alive dagnabit, look at how hairy my neck is

>>15273649
Anon, we're all 'dumb primates.' To think that you're better because your rube-goldberg machine brain (that's just a fancy peacock's tail, in that it gained complexity to attract mates) has conjured up some narcissistic ethical system is absurd.

>>15273646
>deciding for the unborn
The unborn don't exist, so you are not deciding for them. Furthermore, a being that is not yet born, even in some soup of pre-existence, cannot be presented with life's horrors and pleasures and expected to decide if being birthed is worth it because it doesn't have a personality as it hasn't lived yet. Your personality influences whether you avoid risks for fear of pain or seek risks for want of gain.

Furthermore, that anon was referring to suffering beyond physical suffering, especially the types of suffering that only humans can feel. Can a giraffe feel existential dread?

>As a sentient live-form I am inherently extremely biased wanting to continue living
You are also inherently biased to reproduce, but you can overcome that urge.

>wanting to continue living and being attached to live and hopeful
You don't believe that your life will be meaningful and hopeful, do you?

>You can always change your opinion and have children, you cannot reverse suicide.
Then you should commit suicide while you're an antinatalists so you don't live long enough to become a "monstrous natalist."

>Avoiding suffering is the most consistent axiom that is
Then why are you arguing with us?

>By breeding you are arrogantly choosing for the unborn
Why is it bad to be arrogant?

>In my experience it is the natalists who repeatetly spew the same haha kys and loser haha.
Then anti-natalists and natalists have more in common than you think. If you've scrolled, even for a minute, through the comment sections of "Why I'm an Anti-natalist" and "Anti-natalism refuted" or Immendham videos/Anti-natalist discords and reddits (As I have), you'll see it's the same utilitarian malarkey that can't even justify its base axiom- "suffering is bad and pleasure is good." Why is suffering bad and pleasure good?

>>15273646
>1)
>pain =/= suffering
>grief =/= suffering
>We even have evidence for other animals feeling to be able to feel pain
We also hve evidence of animals fucking and having children? Tell me exactly how this proves a singular definition of suffering? I stub my toe, it hurts like mf, but I dont suffer, I feel pain. My mom dies, I feel sad, I wish she were alive, but I dont suffer. Suffering is a subjective evaluation of your emotions. You’ve ever heard the phrase “I dont suffer from mental illness, I enjoy it”. Animals dont suffer either, they feel things, such as pain, grief, hunger. We do too. None of these things qualify as suffering unless you experience them as such.
>2)
>As a sentient live-form I am inherently extremely biased wanting to continue living and being attached to live and hopeful. You can always change your opinion and have children, you cannot reverse suicide.
And this doesnt argue against antinatalism? It’s cruel to bring people into existence, yet it’s okay to enjoy it? You’re attached to life because you’re a sentient being? Ignoring all those people and even animals (while we’re at it) that willing kill themselves when they are genuinely convinced that life isnt worth it. Deleuze, a vitalist and life affirming philosopher, lilled himself once his illness was unbearable. What’s your excuse, mystical little voices in your head tell you not to?
Also, again, this is an entirely subjective statement. Why can someone kill themselves yet you can’t? Wouldn’t you agree that “suffering” is different for different people? For you, it’s abstract and retrospective yet for them is concrete and present? Does this not also appy to the evaluation of the value of life? Yeah, I hurt and grief, but life is worth it for me and would want others to experience? Is this not a possibility as well?
>3)
It’s true. But also, since we’re talking about “proves” here, do you not agree, as proven by Psychologists, that a person’s outlook on life (such as whether it’s worth it or not) is affected by the things they do? What they eat? Where they live? Whether they exercise? What they read? Who they talk to? What they sorround themslebe with? Do you bot agree with the wmpirical possibility that certain actjons lead people to experience “suffering” more or to react to them same thing with greater “suffering”. Like how someone can be reject led from a uni and take it like a champ and move on, yet someone else may break them from it? Do you not think that there is a certain kind of lifestyle that may make someone more likely to have an antinat pov or a vitalist one? I think there is and if the popular antinats like Ligotti and benatar are any exmaple, it’s not far from my ad hominems.

1/2

>>15273704
Thats statistical nonsense.
Also there's twice as many Chinese as there are Europeans, same goes for Indians.
Both countries have high birthrates.

>>15273290
ask your mother

>>15273538
>me strong aryan wurld builda on anime forum!
>>15273550
*Empties prescription drug bottle*
>>15273545
I more so care about suffering
>>15273557
>probably a greater purpose beyond it
kek, I am the arbitrary one.
And I don't care about licking the boots of nature. If you would ACTUALLY belief that, you would have as MANY children as possible.
Having children is self gratification at the utmost form. Lets not delude ourselves, we all have egos.
>You still can’t refute my statement because you’re a pathetic faggot
Don't let your self hate projection out on me. I explained it in another post.
>>15273588
A person who is free of self-gratification would never think about "spreading muh glorious genes".
>The purpose of life is not happiness
Do you work at a homeless shelter? Even when you would do that you would make some homeless people happy.
>>15273599
what is resource scarcity?
>>15273610
And you are a retarded faggot

>>15273646
>4)
>Avoiding suffering is the most consistent axiom that is
Okay, dude, you’re seriously showing your philosophic illiteracy.
>Spinoza
>good and bad things are good and bad for reasons, not objectively.
>Hume
>is/ought
Suffering is bad because why? Because it makes you feel bad? Why is feeling bad actually logically a bad thing? .... Biologic mechanisms? Why should we care about those? Uhhhh... ad infinitum. Whi cares if you make a perfectly coherent moral system around suffering, you still cant justify it logically. You rely on sentimentalism to make your point? Aka, “People feel bad so we shouldnt do it!”
>5)
>I am not. But I could say the same about you dismissing the suffering of others and the inherit potential of suffering. By breeding you are arrogantly choosing for the unborn. So you get to have that extreme kind of dominion but when I antinatalist make arguments "it is just too much"
What about the potential of enjoying life? Why should the potential of suffering outweigh it?

2/2

From fairest creatures we desire increase,
That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
But as the riper should by time decrease
His heir might bear his memory:
But thou, contracted to thine own bright eyes,
Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
Making famine where abundance lies,
Thyself thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel:
Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament,
And only herald to the gaudy spring,
Within thone own bud buriest thy content,
And tender churl mak'st waste in niggarding:
Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.

>>15273661
>can't afford a house
>can't get a job
>eating bug insects
>lives in a rented 20 square meters commie apartment
Dude, read my post. Maybe dont live in New York and move to Idiana. Maybe dont live in Amsterdam and move to
Uden, maybe dont live in Paris and move to Palmiers. At least read, goddamn it. All of these things are fixed by moving away from highly dense areas.

>>15273787
>Suffering is bad because why? Because it makes you feel bad?

You're the equivalent of that faggot who thinks himself to be a cold blooded killer, then sees the horrors of it enfs up shellshocked.

>>15273290
if antinatalism is real why don't you unborn your self

>>15273290
Because antinatalism assumes that everyone values suffering and pleasure the same way, not everyone is a hedonistic utilitarian so clearly antinatilists have assumed incorrectly

>>15273830
Okay, nice nonsequtur, answer the question? Logically prove suffering should be avoided without appealing to subjective feeling? All im proving to you is that avoiding suffering because it feels bad isn’t anymore consistent or logical than supporting life because it feels good to be alive. Both of them are sentimentalist arguments that carry no logical weight. All you’re doing is priving how midwitted antinats are that thry are caught in an argument that was btfo’d hundreds years ago.

>>15273290
>>15273481
This. By refusing to procreate, antinatalists are their own refutation.

Imagine spending your days contemplating this short of shit. Get a job.

Antinatalists are retarded. They shouldn't procreate

>>15273776
And now the anti-natalist succumbs to his brain-fog, turning instead to curt replies.

>me strong aryan wurld builda on anime forum!
>me virtuous AN frogposter on anime forum!

>kek, I am the arbitrary one.
Finally, you admit it

>And I don't care about licking the boots of nature.
Except that's what you're doing every minute of your life, simply by living. It's just that it's too hard to kill yourself, as if it isn't too hard for others to not reproduce. Just admit that you are an anti-natalist because it's easy. Perhaps you are asexual, or an incel like Elliot Rodgers who wished to stop everyone from reproducing because he couldn't.

>If you would ACTUALLY belief that, you would have as MANY children as possible.
So then natalists are virtuous because they are not having as many children as they possibly can (probably numbering in the hundreds, even more if you take into account artificial methods of reproduction). Therefore, the difference between an anti-natalist and a natalist who has a few children is like the difference between not punching someone and lightly tapping someone.

>Having children is self gratification at the utmost form
It still boggles my mind how anti-natalists think they can argue about what families and fathers are like without ever having started a family. It's like thinking to yourself, as a white guy, that all blacks are one-dimensional murder machines.

>Don't let your self hate projection out on me
And in another post, an anon described how anti-natalism is narcissistic because it strokes the ego and allows you to spend money and time on vidya and movies and whatever inane shit it is you like to consume as you wait for death because you're too much of a milquetoast to commit to difficult beliefs like those of the Church of Euthanasia, efilism, or just plain offing yourself.

>A person who is free of self-gratification would never think about "spreading muh glorious genes".
How so?

>the purpose of life is happiness
Why?

>And you are a retarded faggot
Don't let your self hate projection out on him

Anti-natalism is the last refuge of Internet Atheism, movement that was obliterated by a single hat. Worse than wrong, they're cringe.

>>15273290
Retroactively refuted by Hermes Thrice-Great

>>15273521
I am unhappy and dislike living so I will make it so that my child is happy and likes living.

>>15273883
this species will go extinct anytime in a cosmic blink of an eye anyway
and in 200 years all your descendants will have less than 1% of "your" genes
you are not so different

>>15273741
>The unborn don't exist, so you are not deciding for them
They do not exist and you are deciding for them to exist, because like you said they literally CANNOT decide because they are non existent.
>Furthermore, that anon was referring to suffering beyond physical suffering, especially the types of suffering that only humans can feel. Can a giraffe feel existential dread?
Can a giraffe not feel existential dread? What is your point. Social animals can apparently feel very complex emotions beside "fire hot ouch". See depressed animals in oldschool zoos, or that elephant in Honolulu that went berserk. Idk torture a dog and make your own observations...
We are focussing on humans anyway and we don't know that much about our psychology too btw.
>You are also inherently biased to reproduce, but you can overcome that urge.
Not really, it is rather the hard sexdrive. Most beings are conceived by rape. Just look at other primates. Who gets to fuck just fucks. It is not an extreme urge to have children. But it is true that mothers have genetic maternal urges to care for offspring.
You didn't adress that you cannot reverse suicide if you are wrong but that you always can have children. I am not foolproof. Plus suicide in fact does cause great harm in family, friends etc. Especially if you fail and become disabled.
>You don't believe that your life will be meaningful and hopeful, do you?
I am hopeful. Is it rational? Probably no. You underestimate how much is influenced by feelings. My life my responsibility. Doesn't mean I have to choose for potential children to be brought into existence.
>Then you should commit suicide while you're an antinatalists so you don't live long enough to become a "monstrous natalist."
That is incredibly stupid. I have repeatedly said that I am not foolproof. I don't suit antinatalism to me but it just seems to make sense.
>Then why are you arguing with us?
Because arguing is fun?
>Why is it bad to be arrogant?
Because you are being inconsiderate and not aware of others pain. But I just used that worlf because I got called that word repeatedly itt
>Why is suffering bad and pleasure good?
All base axioms are that way. There is not obvios axiom that anyone can agree on. If that were so we wouldn't have all those existential problems.
The things is all living beings agree that suffering, pain discomfort etc is bad. That is why they all avoid it. And pleasure to gets pursued by all living things. It is the most sound axiom there is.
This whole "I am the new contrarian stoic neozai larper who birthes 15 huwhite children to save the west" seems far more arbitrary and pretentious to me

This thread proves that antinatalists are disproved and refuted each and every single time in /lit/.

>>15273646
So your argument is "I have the capability to have a happy life, but any baby brought into the world will suffer"?

Fucking brilliant

>>15273830
That's not an argument. We are not using emotions as arguments here, but rather "logic." Why should something be considered bad because it leads to certain outcomes that a lot of people find unsavory? It's arbitrary as your only reasoning is an argument ad populum, that most people think suffering is bad. How do you determine whether or not something is bad? There is no non-arbitrary way of doing this as an atheist. Even if evolution predisposed us to feel a certain way, that's still arbitrary (for the same reasons you deny natalism). Furthermore, why should we listen to a nature that causes us to create philosophies where suffering is bad and pleasure is good when this same nature tells us to reproduce, and when these kinds of "suffering bad/ pleasure good" views tend to favor the continuation of life. Why should we continue living? Why is it necessary to continue life? All reasons are arbitrary, as in they're personal preference. "Because I want to keep living" isn't a good enough reason. Naively optimistic hopes of future successes are another lie by nature that society and our DNA has brainwashed us into believing, so why should we hold on to that belief? You refuse to be duped by one aspect of nature but living is something sacred to you because you want to keep consuming and being a good little cattle until you die, just barely getting by. All for what? For the next movie? The next video game, or book? You'll die with these fantasies

If you're unhappy 9 times out of 10 it's your own fault. You have every tool you need to make your life at the very least tolerable.

This is the brutal redpill.

>>15273290
Natural selection is one of the only true rules of nature.

By being antinatal, you will never pass on your lineage.

You lose to natural selection

suck a dick

>>15273962
>Not realizing that >1% of your genes being spread on is better than no genes at all.
>Not realizing having a short lifespan makes the existence of the species all the more prescious

>>15273290
Biological impulse kicking in. Upset over refutation of animal instinct angers the person.

>>15274038
This describes antinats reaction to being told to follow thier logic and kill themselves as this thread shows

>>15273787
>Suffering is bad because why? Because it makes you feel bad? Why is feeling bad actually logically a bad thing? .... Biologic mechanisms? Why should we care about those? Uhhhh... ad infinitum. Whi cares if you make a perfectly coherent moral system around suffering, you still cant justify it logically. You rely on sentimentalism to make your point? Aka, “People feel bad so we shouldnt do it!”
No I think any kind of negative experience (suffering, pain whatever) is inheritable bad. I am not denying that there is a utility for pain. But that utility is only for the born and not the unborn. I don't know what is sentimental about wanting to reduce suffering. If you think that suffering is great why don't you explain why and sentimentally cut off your penis.
>What about the potential of enjoying life? Why should the potential of suffering outweigh it?
Because I am not even relying on that assymetry which I believe to be there btw.
I don't think that potential matters to the unborn. It only matters to you, a sentient human who is attached to pleasure. If the pleasure isn't being deprived of anyone who cares. A world of heaven with zero suffering is just as moral as a world with nothing.

>>15274036
>you are half copy of your father genes and half your mother genes
>thinking its "your" genes
lmao, nature trolling low IQ retards to breed

>>15273290
Why are antinatalists such ardent advocates of a way of life which seeks to end life?
Their nihilism should be in conflict with the act of advocacy itself, but they obviously care too much to abandon.
Why are they so set on convincing me not to procreate?
They themselves must be afraid of something, most likely death itself or more relatable, pain.
So they're afraid I'll experience hardships or simply pain?
That seems like both a very reductionist take, reducing existence to its worst, as well as too empathetic for an idea characterised by its intrinsic nihilism.

I deem this philosophy a combination of intimacy problems (fear of impregnation and birthing), fear of death and pain, hyper empathy (the convincing of others to accept the dogma) and of course the ever present disregard for physical health associated and partially responsible in facilitating said pathology.

>>15273290
People that buy into/push this kind of thing were hurt as children and grew up broken. They retain the worst parts of childhood and grow into warped adults and go on to tell people all manner of lies like antinatalism.

>>15273965
>They do not exist and you are deciding for them to exist, because like you said they literally CANNOT decide because they are non existent.
I am deciding for WHO to exist? WHO cannot decide? Remember, anon, this is not like deciding for a coma patient or a sleeping person. We are talking about non-existent entities.

>Can a giraffe not feel existential dread? What is your point. Social animals can apparently feel very complex emotions beside "fire hot ouch". See depressed animals in oldschool zoos, or that elephant in Honolulu that went berserk. Idk torture a dog and make your own observations...
We are focussing on humans anyway and we don't know that much about our psychology too btw.
Yes, but you didn't answer my question. Animals cannot feel the complex range of emotions that humans can.

>Not really, it is rather the hard sexdrive. Most beings are conceived by rape. Just look at other primates.
So we're focusing on humans and instantly we veer off to other species. Brilliant.

> It is not an extreme urge to have children
Yes it is. That's the point of having sex- furthering your genetic information.

>You didn't adress that you cannot reverse suicide if you are wrong but that you always can have children
You can't reverse having children if you change your mind about AN in the future, but they can reverse being born by killing themselves. You can't reverse suicide, but that doesn't matter. Not every philosophy needs a safety net, and this is assuming there isn't an afterlife/reincarnation.

>Plus suicide in fact does cause great harm in family, friends etc.
You can estrange yourself from your friends to the point that they no longer care about you, and also wait for your parents to die before you kill yourself. Either way, if your parents suffer it's what they deserve for begetting you, right?

>Especially if you fail and become disabled.
Advocate for safe Euthanasia then.

>That is incredibly stupid. I have repeatedly stated that I am not foolproof
All the more reason to commit an hero. Don't want to reproduce in the future and risk bringing the next Hitler or Cioran into existence, right?
>Because arguing is fun?
But it can cause suffering for all parties involved. You can cause yourself suffering because you are your own responsibility, but you shouldn't cause me to suffer by arguing with me.

>Because you are being inconsiderate and not aware of others pain. But I just used that worlf because I got called that word repeatedly itt
Why is it bad to be inconsiderate?

>The things is all living beings agree that suffering, pain discomfort etc is bad
Why does this make suffering/pain/whatever bad? Because everyone believes it is so?

>This whole "I am the new contrarian stoic neozai larper who birthes 15 huwhite children to save the west" seems far more arbitrary and pretentious to me
I am none of that, I am just pointing out how the base axiom is arbitrary and accepted out of convention rather than having a logical basis

>>15274060
>No I think any kind of negative experience (suffering, pain whatever) is inheritable bad
But why is it BAD?????? You midwit. What does BAD mean here? You dont even know, you’re just going off and on without even reflecting on what you mean or whether anybody understands you. How is pain inherently* bad? By virtue of what?
>utlity doesnt matter to the unborn
Ohohohoho then I await your answer to the question. How is not being born good to the unborn if not because it helps them avoid suffering? If utility doesn’t matter to them, thwn there is no moral value to their hirth either way (good or bad), since after all their existence or lack thereof wont matter to them until they’re born. You’re being caught in your incoherence.
>saying utility doesn’t matter while supporting a negative utilitarian moral philosophy
>I don't think that potential matters to the unborn.
....
>>15273646
>But I could say the same about you dismissing the suffering of others and the inherit potential of suffering. By breeding you are arrogantly choosing for the unborn
Nice coherent worldview you have there
>A world of heaven with zero suffering is just as moral as a world with nothing.
Sentimentalism par excellence.

>>15274064
And yet you will die, with your high IQ, brain full of philosophy lectures and books, and so on. I doubt you'll even leave a brainchild behind, seeing as anti-natalists are so averse to making children.

>>15274060
>I don't think that potential matters to the unborn.
Earlier you said >>15273646
>the inherit potential of suffering. By breeding you are arrogantly choosing for the unborn
This is the antinatalist mind.

>>15273577
Even if this was true, we have to consider the quality of the next generation and not just the quantity.

>>15273290
God says birth good.

>>15273521
>You are damning your children to guaranteed suffering
I don't know about you, but the joy in my life has far surpassed the suffering, so I would gladly accept living my life over again, and as such feel no reservations bringing a child into the world. I think your sentiment here is the crux of the issue, you are a sad miserable person and can't comprehend that life can be a joyous, beautiful, wonderful thing. Sad.

>>15273865
>Logically prove an unpleasant reaction to tissue being torn apart causing you great physical discomfort and psychological terror is perceived as negative by you either while or after having experienced it
I was screaming and I shit my pants when thinking about it.
>no not like that, it has to be a purely semantic conceptualisation, you basically have to utilise language like numbers, disconnected from any physical adding or removing of measures and/or objects, present solely in the imaginary
Non relatable to my pain and soiled undies.

>>15273836
Good point
>>15273847
Everyone does but they pretent to not be. Pretentious is what you are
>>15273865
Suffering isn't that subjective. You can poke any living being in the eye and it will go ouch. You can mentally abuse most people. We all have a very similar experience. By that logic you couldn't prove anything beside purely theoretical mathematical issues. You have to make some assumptions. If you don't think so kick a dog and see what happens
>>15273940
You are literally seething with hatred.
Your ad hominems aren't even true, I am not ugly. Go punch a pillow or smth
>So then natalists are virtuous because they are not having as many children as they possibly can (probably numbering in the hundreds, even more if you take into account artificial methods of reproduction). Therefore, the difference between an anti-natalist and a natalist who has a few children is like the difference between not punching someone and lightly tapping someone

Sure having one kid is less bad than having 100, that would be my view. Point?
>It still boggles my mind how anti-natalists think they can argue about what families and fathers are like without ever having started a family. It's like thinking to yourself, as a white guy, that all blacks are one-dimensional murder machines.
It still boggles my mind how pseudo-natalist on 4chan can't comprehend that not everyone has the same subjective experiences. I was born in a family. I know many other families from friends, I know stories, I just look around in life.
Half of all marriages end in divorce. And I know a handful of fathers who had children and their wives left them. I have seen a lot of abuse and hatred from parents towards their kids.
Shut your fucking mouth, you probably yourself don't even have kids asshole
>And in another post, an anon described how anti-natalism is narcissistic because it strokes the ego and allows you to spend money and time on vidya and movies and whatever inane shit it is you like to consume as you wait for death because you're too much of a milquetoast to commit to difficult beliefs like those of the Church of Euthanasia, efilism, or just plain offing yourself.
You still didn't attack the ethical argument for antinatalism. If having children is wrong there is nothing wrong with byusing lotz of dem vidogaymes and jacking off toi hentai. I thinkl you probably are much more of a pussy irl than me aswell.
Retarded zoomer

>>15273965
>They do not exist and you are deciding for them to exist

How is that better than deciding for them to not exist? Most people agree that existence is better than nonexistence, so if you're going to decide either way, why not decide in favor of the most likely decision the unborn would make if they could decide for themselves?

>>15273500

because we are imaginary ego sprites who act as phantom drivers for what is essentially an automated reproductive system

>>15274207
>>Logically prove an unpleasant reaction to tissue being torn apart causing you great physical discomfort and psychological terror is perceived as negative by you either while or after having experienced it
Empirically disproven by masochists, by the prominence of spicy foods, by all the people who do exercise and sports, by chronic addiction, by all the people who voluntarily put themselves in the way of stress (such as playing challenging games, arguing, fighting, fasting) and enjoy it.

Try again. And this time use your brain.

>posters on this board still haven't even accepted that life is suffering
Blind in an endless desert eating sand. This conversation won't go anywhere OP, they still think "making it" is a place they can reach and a place they can stay.

>>15274209
>You can poke any living being in the eye and it will go ouch.
Yeah, and? This is pain, not suffering, many people enjoy pain. Some choke themselves on purpose. Read any psychology, thank me later.
> By that logic you couldn't prove anything beside purely theoretical mathematical issues.
Close. Moral philosophy is always a spook. You're just arguing for an aesthetic preference of yours (no ouchies pls mommy) and not making any actual rational point. Thanks for admitting this.

>>15274258
Define suffering

Do anti-natalists usually let themselves be sterilized?

>>15274276
Hopefully

>>15274258
Anon, I already made it. We all did. You just looked a gift horse in the mouth and are upset you didn't get a race horse.

>>15273290
Because it's a depressing life-denying philosophy that for many people, if true, would logically lead to suicide. And since that the presupposition of the whole thing is base materialism and egoism it's difficult to know where to even start with it.

>>15274272
life

>>15274258
>I'm unhappy so that means no one anywhere could possibly be happy either
I pity anons like you. I really do

>>15274287
It was an honest question. I figure, you're not gonna get kids, but you can still have sex, and that way you won't ever have to worry about getting anyone pregnant ever.

>>15274209
>Sure having one kid is less bad than having 100, that would be my view. Point?
>that would be my view
Thanks for not argumenting it what so ever.
>It still boggles my mind how pseudo-natalist on 4chan can't comprehend that not everyone has the same subjective experiences
It still boggles my mind how you'd actually use random accounts of broken families to make claims against the very nature of natalism by claiming predetermination of a narrow scope of outcomes making it look like the social climate surrounding the issue cannot or won't change
>You still didn't attack the ethical argument for antinatalism
You still haven't given it one

>>15274272
Any date which is not neutral or pleasurable. These are most states but especially in aging, loss, sickness, and even lacking that which you desire.

>>15274294
>>15274314
Talk to me again on your death bed, fucking retards.

>>15273960
Your child will not be like you. I speak from experience. There are kids totally different in temperament and character than their parent. It is naive for you to assume you could guarantee that. And even when, there is the inherit risk of the world. Just look at some trafficaccidents statistics. This is a world where your kid could loose limbs, eyesight, whole face etc

>>15273987
You are retarded, not my fault when you simplify my views.
>>15273969
Nope they are not. Just adhominems, misrepresentation and faulty arguments.
>>15274012
Finally a honest person. But surely you must see that preventing suffering is the least arbitrary because most living things abide by it.
Sure it is based on subjective feelings but it is the most sensical assumption to make
>>15274016
Very brutal indeed.
Idk if you believe in free will but the fact that suffering exists to that extend makes it kind of predictable that it will happen to future generations too. What a cruel game where everyone looses in the end.
>>15274017
idc
>>15274074
You are assuming that antinatalism=nihilism. When you care about preventing suffering and that is your meaning you are not nihilist.
You are just making assumption and do not attack the ethical argument.
If pain is so great then why is it even there? It is there to avoid the thing that is painful, so your biological human form can survive you fucking dingus. Stick the maria statue up your butt
>>15274093
This statement literally supports the antinatalist position.
Maybe you are an elitist psychopaths who spits on the homeless because
>haha they not me they got beaten by their dad loltzz

>>15274314
been there in the past; will almost certainly end up there again
having fucked up brain chemistry makes the world look like a very different place

>>15274366
Happy people tend to live longer, so chances are you'll die before me, tough luck :)

>>15274209
>Everyone does but they pretent to not be. Pretentious is what you are
No they don't. Not everyone thinks suffering should be avoided at all costs.

>you are literally seething with hatred
Projection. I'm not angry, it's just that you have thin skin. Like suffering, it is subjective.

>so having one kid is less bad than having 100, that would be my view
That would be my view as well. Point being that there's a difference between this view and the view that one should not reproduce at any cost

>It still boggles...
I was born in a family too and I also look around in life and see happy families. My point still stands that you haven't started a family so you can't understand why reproduction can be more than just self-gratification. "Reproduction is only self-gratification" can be true for some people and perhaps is in accordance with your anecdotal "evidence," but it is not universally true.

>not everyone has the same subjective experiences, but all reproduction is self-gratification and narcissism

>you still didn't attack the ethical argument for anti-natalism
Which ethical argument for anti-natalism? State it, and I will attempt to refute.

>If having children is wrong there is nothing wrong with byusing lotz of dem videogames and jacking off toi hentai
Yeah but there is something wrong with living. Not due to anti-natalism but due to the microcosm of beliefs it is situated in.

This is all if you actually believe that there are universal rights and wrongs and are not an ethical relativist. Or if you believe rights and wrongs actually exist. Or if you are not of Kantian persuasions, which is opposed to your utilitarian reasoning.

>>15274258
We accept life is suffering, and live and reproduce in spite of that.

>>15274391
Define happy

>>15274323
True, but the pure anti-natalists will shun even the slightest chance of conception. Birth control surgeries and products do not have 100% success rates. The only guaranteed contraception is abstinence.

>>15274370
This is why it's not worth answering antinat threads and they should be banned. All one line statements, no effort, no meaningful engagement, just dismissal and circlejerk

>>15274396
>We accept life is suffering, and live and reproduce in spite of that.
If there is such a thing as immoral action, it is this.

>>15274397
A persistence of desirable states of consciousness and a lack of undesirable states of consciousness

>>15274417
You are evolutionary dead end.

>>15274417
If suffering is bad, then you should terminate your life

Unless of course you view life as having some sort of worth that counteracts the suffering?

>>15274417
>If there is such a thing as immoral action
But there isn't. Morality is a spook you were indoctrinated with and you predictably want to turn it against itself as all resentful people do. You went from "dont cause suffering to others" to "let's avoid suffering all together, no more people!" and think yourself very clever and righteous. Read Nietzsche.

>>15273290
Because children are amazing and fill our hearts with joy

>>15274245
>Empirically disproven by masochists
By masochists, for masochists, you fucking mong.
>spicy foods
>"great physical suffering"
I'm suffering right fucking now...
>exercise and sports, by chronic addiction, by all the people who voluntarily put themselves in the way of stress (such as playing challenging games, arguing, fighting, fasting) and enjoy it.
Because none of those rank highly on the pain list and are accompanied by a shit ton of psychosomatic reactions and conscious mental manifestations.

>>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

>>15274479
>By masochists, for masochists, you fucking mong.
retard
>Because none of those rank highly on the pain list
Ah yes, and >tfw no gf does?
>shit ton of psychosomatic reactions and conscious mental manifestations.
Oh, and getting stab doesn't? This is vague bullshit you don't even know..

>>15274133
>I am deciding for WHO to exist? WHO cannot decide? Remember, anon, this is not like deciding for a coma patient or a sleeping person. We are talking about non-existent entities.
Whoooooooooooooooooo
The potential child most parents envision I guess. If you take it that way all people are just constructs in your heads. The point is it is you who decides and not them
>Animals cannot feel the complex range of emotions that humans can.
How do you even know that. Animals can get depressed, can get post traumatic stress disorders etc. I am not a specialist but work in a dog shelter or smth and look for yourself.
Sure most humans that are non retarded can feel more complex emotions. and? Animals can still suffer. Would you torture a retarded person because it isn't as neurologically sophisticated as you?
>So we're focusing on humans and instantly we veer off to other species. Brilliant.
Nope. A great number of children are just accidents from fucking. Why does contraception exist then, if human want to fuck that much without having kids. Just think for yourself a bit...
I am not denying that there a people who have a strong wish to have kids. How much of it is biological or socialized? Idk. But it doesn't matter to my ethical view aniways
>Yes it is. That's the point of having sex- furthering your genetic information.
That is the point of the sexual urge. Doesn't change that most animal including humans just want to cum into a pussy.
>You can't reverse having children if you change your mind about AN in the future, but they can reverse being born by killing themselves. You can't reverse suicide, but that doesn't matter. Not every philosophy needs a safety net, and this is assuming there isn't an afterlife/reincarnation.
Okay you could kill your kids too I guess. This is totally retarded. I repeatedly said that I am not foolproof. I am not AN itself I am just arguing about it. Stop insisting on killing myself it is fallacious.
>You can estrange yourself from your friends to the point that they no longer care about you, and also wait for your parents to die before you kill yourself. Either way, if your parents suffer it's what they deserve for begetting you, right?
Estrangement doesn't cause harm? And I don't even believe in deseving or not deserving. You are not attacking the ethical view still.
It doesn't matter what I do
>Advocate for safe Euthanasia then.
ok but I am still AN
>But it can cause suffering for all parties involved. You can cause yourself suffering because you are your own responsibility, but you shouldn't cause me to suffer by arguing with me.
I guess I am a masochist now. Still doesn't matter
>Why does this make suffering/pain/whatever bad? Because everyone believes it is so?
Yes. You fucking idiot.
>I am none of that, I am just pointing out how the base axiom is arbitrary and accepted out of convention rather than having a logical basis
Every base axiom is that way. If you think pain might be okay gorge your eyes out

>>15274409
I've been wanting to say this for a long time. Every time anti-natalism is brought up AN just bring up the same canned responses regurgitated to them by their mother bird Immendham. It's the same discussion time and time again and they never learn because their belief is not altogether logical, it is motivated and sustained by emotions. Motivated, perhaps by great suffering, but sustained by the reluctance to part with their victimhood, as victimhood is sometimes the only redeeming qualities some people have.

>>15274417
Why is it immoral? Do morals exist? What is your basis for morals existing? Evolution? Logic? These things are random, arbitrary. Morals are ever-changing and subjective, and not everyone believes in the most logically or evolutionarily supported morals.

>>15274443
And so the resident /lit/ Nietzscheans who, in other threads, I would've bitterly argued, come to our aid like the Rohirrim cavalry.

>>15274437
Thought about it, but I'm already here. It's a catch 22 where if I self terminate, I create suffering for others. So I instead consent to toughing it out. But I at least have the compassion to not subject another to the same shit against their will.

>>15274428
Literally do not care. I'll be taking some good genes with me too.

having children is selfish. if one is not selfish but believes in lessening the suffering in this world they would adopt. name one reason for having children instead of adopting that is not for selfish reasons.

>>15274550
correct answer to suicide question. the less suffering the better, and by continuing to exist i lessen suffering for others. i do not contribute to more suffering by bringing in more people

>>15274134
>But why is it BAD?????? You midwit. What does BAD mean here? You dont even know, you’re just going off and on without even reflecting on what you mean or whether anybody understands you. How is pain inherently* bad? By virtue of what?
Because it hurts. You can't philosophize yourself out of pain. You seriosly need a beating because you forgot the sensation. Read my other posts I explained it a lot
>Ohohohoho then I await your answer to the question. How is not being born good to the unborn if not because it helps them avoid suffering? If utility doesn’t matter to them, thwn there is no moral value to their hirth either way (good or bad), since after all their existence or lack thereof wont matter to them until they’re born. You’re being caught in your incoherence.
Because the absence of suffering is good even if that absence isn't perceived.
Sure it isn't good for THEM because they don't exist. But if they would you would have harmed them by bringing them into existence.
I don't even care about the unborn especially. I care about net-suffering. And you would increase that by bringing more sentient beings into existence.

>>15274577
why is having children selfish?

>>15274577
>having children is selfish
False premise

>>15273303
Isn't this from Matrix

>>15274532
>Whoooooooooooooooooo
Is this the sound of air leaving your deflated brain?

>The potential child most parents envision I guess. If you take it that way all people are just constructs in your heads.
No they are not, they actually exist. It's like saying God exists because I envision him in my head and "he's surely gonna arrive upon this earth in the Rapture!" Children envisioned by their parents, just like God, are not guaranteed to arrive upon this earth. They could be miscarried. They could be twins, triplets, or more. Point is, their "envisioning" is unimportant. It's like envisioning someone beyond the grave, telling you what to do and what not to do.

>How do you even know that. Animals can get depressed, can get post traumatic stress disorders etc.
Call me when we get the next Fido Dogstoevsky writing books with the paint of our shared human experience. Point is, we're more complex than animals on all levels.

> Would you torture a retarded person because it isn't as neurologically sophisticated as you?
Would I torture you? No, because he is a human being.

>Nope. A great number of children are just accidents from fucking
Does this mean a great number of children are unwanted? If they are wanted, does this justify having them?

>Why does contraception exist then, if human want to fuck that much without having kids
Because people want to live their shallow lives in the company of Sonic and bing bing wahoo instead of a child. It's too hard to have a child and humanity is deteriorating into effete affluence.

>That is the point of the sexual urge. Doesn't change that most animal including humans just want to cum into a pussy.
No shit, but there is that underlying reason.

>Okay you could kill your kids too I guess.
But you don't believe it is right to impose yourself onto other entities, which is the notion that undergirds your anti-natalism. Therefore, it would be wrong to believe in killing children if you had them. It is they who should take their life into their own hands and kill themselves.

>I am not AN I am just arguing about it
We have that in common

>it is fallacious
Nope

>Estrangement doesn't cause harm?
If you don't have overly-attached friends, yes. You make friends, and then you lose them and make new friends. You'll have to do a little utilitarian calculus here, but usually most friends you lose won't keep in touch with you and so the suffering you'd cause future friends outweighs the suffering you'd cause the few friends you still keep in touch with

>I don't believe in deserving or not deserving
Then what's to stop me from reproducing? Should I not reproduce just to get a pat on back and a trophy at the end of the day? If I don't care about the suffering my child will cause me, then there's not even a punishment for reproducing. There's no tribunal of anti-natalists, no natalist jail or hell.

>I guess I am a masochist now. Still doesn't matter
So you ARE allowed to cause people to suffer?

>>15274619
>>15274634
having children is selfish because the adoption exists. you have two options. both result in you raising a child. however, one of the options drastically decreases the total suffering in the world. which do you pick?

>>15274173
I meant the potential for pleasure. To be fair nothing matters to them since they don't exist. But the overall human net-suffering would increase.
>>15274201
But I still exist. So what if you gave birth to me?
>>15274219
Because most people don't kill themselves. By that logic most humans want to exist so you have a moral obligation to bring as many of them to existence because they would want to
>>15274245
Masochrist derive pleasure out of slight penis pain. Spicy foot releases endorphines. Exercise also releases endorphines and looking more attractive does feel good too, people who are addicted have to take drugs because they are fucking addicted?
>>15274314
Even if it were 50/50% and one half of humans would live in pure eternal pleasure and the other in dreadful sorrow I would still think it is wrong to have kids. You are just shaming the misfortunate for their misfortune. Guess what your mom died.
>>15274409
How is your response any better?

>>15274694
> having children is selfish because the adoption exists
why?
> one of the options drastically decreases the total suffering in the world
How do you know? If someone were to decide to adopt a child and ends up beating it that doesn’t really decrease suffering in the world now does it?

>>15274158
you too

>>15274719
>Even if it were 50/50% and one half of humans would live in pure eternal pleasure and the other in dreadful sorrow I would still think it is wrong to have kids. You are just shaming the misfortunate for their misfortune. Guess what your mom died.
Then your argument should be that dysfunctional families shouldn't have children, but circumstances where the children will have every advantage are a good thing. Also my mom and dad are still alive and well, thanks.

>>15274747
if a person chose to adopt and then abused their adopted child, do you really believe that they would have behaved differently with a child they created themselves?
i don't understand your confusion about having children being a selfish act. i feel like i explained it as simply as i could in>>15274694
instead, tell me a reason for having children that decreases the total amount of suffering in the world more than adoption does.

>>15274836
fuck i forgot image

>>15274437
to spread antinatalism further

>>15274370
No, it does not. Adults ruin a perfectly wonderful world by screwing their more perfectly formed children. You’re seeing things backwards. I donno if it’s on purpose or you really are deranged.

>>15274864
i am not sure if this post is pro or antinatalism. anyways if you are correct and adults screw over their children, then they should simply not have children to avoid screwing someone over

>>15274675
>No they are not, they actually exist. It's like saying God exists because I envision him in my head and "he's surely gonna arrive upon this earth in the Rapture!" Children envisioned by their parents, just like God, are not guaranteed to arrive upon this earth. They could be miscarried. They could be twins, triplets, or more. Point is, their "envisioning" is unimportant. It's like envisioning someone beyond the grave, telling you what to do and what not to do.
Sure I agree. My initial point is it that it is still you who decides not them, even when they are non existent.
>Would I torture you? No, because he is a human being.
So you agree it is immoral to cause needless suffering. Just like having children is needless and will cause them suffering.
>Does this mean a great number of children are unwanted? If they are wanted, does this justify having them?
No it doesn't. You just went on abou how there is a innate human drive to have kids and I countered that it is mainly sex drive. You have to think back to the other posts
>Because people want to live their shallow lives in the company of Sonic and bing bing wahoo instead of a child. It's too hard to have a child and humanity is deteriorating into effete affluence.
So your kids have to have kids too for this arbitrary "meaningful existence" thing. So it is a endless ponzy scheme.
So it is just arbitrary ramble at this point then... There are many people who are considered meaningful that never had kids.
How do you get to decide what is shallow
>but there is that underlying reason.
And I don't care about that reason, it is licking natures boots. I care about suffering.
What actually concerns you me and everyone itt.
>But you don't believe it is right to impose yourself onto other entities, which is the notion that undergirds your anti-natalism. Therefore, it would be wrong to believe in killing children if you had them. It is they who should take their life into their own hands and kill themselves.
And there are many antinatalists who consider it wrong to kys as it causes suffering. It doesn't matter who you kill.
>Then what's to stop me from reproducing? Should I not reproduce just to get a pat on back and a trophy at the end of the day? If I don't care about the suffering my child will cause me, then there's not even a punishment for reproducing. There's no tribunal of anti-natalists, no natalist jail or hell.
Because I believe it is morally the right thing to do. I don't eat meat either and I get no real pats on back too beside my own
>So you ARE allowed to cause people to suffer?
If they enjoy it ;)

>>15274455
and then they will grow up and have to face the suffering of human existence

THE PAIN OF CHILDREN IS GOOD AND RIGHTEOUS

>>15274825

If you could look into a crystal ball, then sure. But you are still taking in a massive risk. People will get hurt regardless of upbringing. Life is full of suffering. Would you think it to be okay to have a kid if it was born with a severe disfigurement? Guaranteed to be bullied for it, low self esteem, depression etc. He could still feel pleasure, he could appreciate art play video etc. But most people would abort a person like him. Why is that when the same things can happen if you are born not disfigured?
>>15274864
There are naturally very aggressive children. We are not a blank slate, genetics predetermine behavior

>>15273290
That much you have in common with the rest of the celenterates : your eyes work, but by themselves, for themselves, like socialist institutions, they've their own three ring binders and who are you again ?

They know perfectly well what to do on their own and by themselves, look, another meaningless shape moving over there! You just imagine having seen for having "looked", so to speak ; your brain "works" after its own fashion which has nothing to do with anything (nor with "you", though you also aren't anything) and so on.

>>15274542
My base axiom is that prevention of suffering is a good thing, even if that prevention isn't appreciated by anyone.
Taking to its logical conclusion it is wrong to perpetuate sentient live.
Yes morals are basically just feefees determined by culture and natural disgust for certain things.
I think it is immoral to cause pain, most natalists would agree.

You ultimately would want the human experiment to end. Theres not much reason to take you seriously.

>>15274898
No, they should understand and alter their screw ups.

>>15274961
All adjustable, preventable. I’m talking about the big picture.

>>15275037
I want to give this planet back to the dinosaurs
apes are disgusting

>>15275037
They didn't take Hitler seriously too when he proposed to the catholic church that the world is in fact round.

>>15275072
>All adjustable, preventable. I’m talking about the big picture.
And yet they still natural butterdyke.

>>15274961
>There are naturally very aggressive children. We are not a blank slate, genetics predetermine behavior
Do not bother trying to explain that to butterdyke. I already debated this topic and this excrement still thinks nature is benevolent.

>>15273290
>life hard
>me have no purpose
>me no wish i was born

>>15273521
>How is pain is bad an arbitrary axiom?
Because some pain comes attached to great pleasure. For example, the pain of getting these gainz, bitch

>>15275135
You did it

>>15274577
>>15274836
im going to bed now so i wont be able to reply if anyone argues against me here

>>15275135
i don't see how one could avoid suicide with that jawline

>>15275147
This is just simplifying the issue.
If there were no pleasure or promised pleasures with having gains you wouldn't lift weights.

>>15275160
Yet people still think it is okay and just and birth somebody like that into this judgemental world

>>15274612
You’re not very bright, anon. Or at the very least, you don’t understand the argument being made.
>Because it hurts. You can't philosophize yourself out of pain.
I’m not. The claim PAIN IS BAD is not circumscribed anywhere. It only makes sense when BAD is refered to an end. It’s a philosophic claim YOUR making. Pain hurts, but nothing in that implies it should be avoided. Pain is a signal that informs the reciever. It doesn’t do anything else outside of your mind and its abstractions.
>You seriosly need a beating because you forgot the sensation. Read my other posts I explained it a lot
You haven’t explained anything. You said pain hurts and I dont like being hurt. Sentimentalism which you havent escaped or proved sufficient. You can learn from pain, which if you value knowledge, makes it good. This is as logical as your argument. Getting punch might hurt, but if someone offers you a mill for it, you’d take it. There was bo avoidance of pain there, but a deliberate acquisition of it in order to derive a pleasure. A “bad” becomes a goid depending on its structural relations to other things. Pain isn’t inherently bad and you will never have anything to base that on except vague references to intuition you don’t even understand.
>Because the absence of suffering is good even if that absence isn't perceived.
Why?
>Sure it isn't good for THEM because they don't exist. But if they would you would have harmed them by bringing them into existence.
But I also would them a service by providing them with pleasures that come with life? Back to the old question: why should potential suffering outweigh potential pleasure? There is no answer to this, since it’s all subjective.
> I care about net-suffering.
Ok, tell me then, where is there more suffering, a 100 years of life or in suicide?

I cannot defeat antinatalist anon but I also don't accept the idea that I must agree with him.

>>15275135
>expect miserable people to defend life
even if you are ultra chad you will eventually get old, ugly, sick and die alone
the higher you get the worse is the fall

Because suffering is actually a constructive force in human life. Everything good we have is a result of using our physical and intellectual abilities to avoid and reduce suffering while also continuing the human race. Antinatalism does not guarantee the accomplishment of one and assuredly denies the latter, therefore it is faulty

>>15275238
>I’m not. The claim PAIN IS BAD is not circumscribed anywhere. It only makes sense when BAD is refered to an end. It’s a philosophic claim YOUR making. Pain hurts, but nothing in that implies it should be avoided. Pain is a signal that informs the reciever. It doesn’t do anything else outside of your mind and its abstractions.
Sure I agree. But what is beyond us to care about?
>You haven’t explained anything. You said pain hurts and I dont like being hurt. Sentimentalism which you havent escaped or proved sufficient. You can learn from pain, which if you value knowledge, makes it good. This is as logical as your argument. Getting punch might hurt, but if someone offers you a mill for it, you’d take it. There was bo avoidance of pain there, but a deliberate acquisition of it in order to derive a pleasure. A “bad” becomes a goid depending on its structural relations to other things. Pain isn’t inherently bad and you will never have anything to base that on except vague references to intuition you don’t even understand.
I acknowledged this too that pain is usefull to keep our biological form intact. But I still think pain in intrinsically bad.
If I would not take that offer of the 1 mill I would mentally suffer because I would know that I have been deprived of great wealth that I could have easily aquired. I have acknowledged too that people pursue small pains to pursue perceived greater pleasures or avoidance of worse pain.
>Why?
Because my base axiom is that it is good to avoid suffering. Because ouch
>But I also would them a service by providing them with pleasures that come with life? Back to the old question: why should potential suffering outweigh potential pleasure? There is no answer to this, since it’s all subjective.
It is subjective to YOU, because you are a born human. If you think about a world without pleasure you FEEL it as empty and sad. But it is just your subjective feelings. Its is completely neutral because nobody is DEPRIVED of that pleasure. The unborn can't be sad about it.
The unborn also can't be glad that they don't suffer. But it doesn't matter to because avoiding suffering is inheritably good.
>Ok, tell me then, where is there more suffering, a 100 years of life or in suicide?
In all likelyhood in live. Where do you think is ZERO suffering 100 years of live or never being born?

>>15273335
>antinatalism is selfishness
lol

>>15273290

>>15275314
If you don't engage with the problem then there is no problem. Sure the entire world is not going to stop reproducing one day

>>15273484
/thread

>>15275397
>If I ignore something it ceases to exist
based antinatalist retard

>>15275428
If you don't bring sentient life into the world it's suffering isn't a problem since it isn't. What do you suggest? Making more and more humans until what? We live a Utopia?
Objectively speaking we live in the best times possible in the west. Shelter for everyone, easily accessible food, no backbreaking work, cheap entertainment and activities to choose, less conflicts etc. Yet mental illness is increasing and people aren't living in ecstasy and go through plenty of suffering. You say suffering is an overstatement, okay that is just semantics. Just look in peoples faces. Maybe that is just where I live but people just don't look happy at all but worried, annoyed, angry or bored. And then a relative dies, and thenyou win a free baseballcap. In then end it is just a hugeamount of negative emotion for a little bit hope and a tiny bit of good. For what in the end?
I don't understand why you would want to perpetuate that.

>>15275548
>If you don't bring sentient life into the world it's suffering isn't a problem since it isn't.
And? The cessation of the suffering of what is not does not relieve the suffering of what is. What do you suggest? Reducing more and more humans until we all cease to exist and therefore do not suffer? But of course whether you like to admit it or not existence is better than non-existence because you like the will to kill yourself.

>Objectively speaking we live in the best times possible in the west. Shelter for everyone, easily accessible food, no backbreaking work, cheap entertainment and activities to choose, less conflicts etc. Yet mental illness is increasing and people aren't living in ecstasy and go through plenty of suffering.
Define suffering. And antinatalism does nothing to address the problems stated here, in fact it does nothing to address the problems of the already living, therefore it is already faulty and antithetical to human nature. Go read Kaczynski or Marx or whatever revolutionary philosopher if you want at least an actual answer to that problem.

>>15275625
*lack the will to kill yourself

>>15275625
>The cessation of the suffering of what is not does not relieve the suffering of what is
It sure reduces it. Tremendously.
>Reducing more and more humans until we all cease to exist and therefore do not suffer?
Yes, but it won't happen that way. Regardless, one human less means one sufferer less.
>But of course whether you like to admit it or not existence is better than non-existence because you like the will to kill yourself.
I have already addressed this.
>Define suffering.
Any negative emotion.
>Go read Kaczynski or Marx or whatever revolutionary philosopher if you want at least an actual answer to that problem.
It is bullshit both of them don't have the kind of knowledge to even tackle the issue of human suffering. I don't have it too, I simply do not engage with the issue by just not perpetuating existence. We simply aren't made to be happy.
Ted was a seething Autists who got treated shitty by a shitty world. As smart as he was and the prediction he has made it was mostly a self motivated act of vengeance. How would he know the well being of humanity pre industrialization. How could marx now how the human psyche would really play out in communal living?
It is all just deduction and a huge mess

>>15275715
>It sure reduces it. Tremendously.
and what about the existential crises people will have as a result of no longer being able to have children? is that not suffering?
>Yes, but it won't happen that way. Regardless, one human less means one sufferer less.
so you admit your line of thinking has no real way of being implemented
>I have already addressed this.
We’re on an anonymous image board, how can I possibly know which post is you addressing this?
> Any negative emotion.
Define negative emotion. And what makes this “bad”?
>It is bullshit both of them don't have the kind of knowledge to even tackle the issue of human suffering. I don't have it too, I simply do not engage with the issue by just not perpetuating existence.
Confirmed for not reading either. And again, ignoring the issue only solves the issue for yourself, and none others. This only reinforces the idea that antinatalism along with the rest of nihilism is nothing more than narcissism
>We simply aren't made to be happy.
This line of thought btfos antinatalism, ironically

Anti-natalism will never be anything more than an academic busy box, its quite literally meaningless

>>15275858
>and what about the existential crises people will have as a result of no longer being able to have children? is that not suffering?
incomparable to the suffering an average person goes through. What are you advocating for is a generational pozyscheme.
>so you admit your line of thinking has no real way of being implemented
Sure heavily incentivizing people to not breed or adopt would reduce a lot of suffering.
>And what makes this “bad”?
Because it feels bad obviously. What else do you want to base your ethics around? Do you avoid pain? Why don't you gauge your eyes out?
>Confirmed for not reading either. And again, ignoring the issue only solves the issue for yourself, and none others. This only reinforces the idea that antinatalism along with the rest of nihilism is nothing more than narcissism
Read both, sorry Mr Ancap. How am I nihilistic when I have a clear moral framework?? Fuck off you don't know what you are talking about.
I don't understand how it is possibly narcistic to be antinatalist. I could say the same about natalism...
>This line of thought btfos antinatalism, ironically
Non existent people aren't happy

Fuck off

OP you posted this on /r9k/ recently and you're not half as smart as you think you are. I don't know what you're trying to prove but you're just talking in circles at this point. Maybe if you weren't so combative for no reason, people might respect you

>>15276063
I don't think I am smart at all.
I don't understand how you can dismiss the axiom of avoiding suffering.
I am no more combative then those repeating the same adhominem kys loser lol.
What fucking respect on 4chan...
If you are so smart explain how I am wrong

>haha antinatalists are so dumb. if they were so right about the world then they would kill themse-

My issue with life is that even if it's amazing it will inevitably end. I don't want to create life, especially life I will love and adore more than all things, only for it to wither and die. Why would I want to force a conscious being to face the abyss when he could've remained in the abyss and skipped the existential dread?

>>15273290
Burden of proof is on the antinatalists, since they are going against the drive of life. A more mature argument would obviously be eugenics.

>>15276749
Then don't? leave it up to the chads who get pussy with ease and have strong healthy children, maybe you can try to be reincarnated as one of them, or maybe you can just try to make your life as good as you can. The abyss is non-existence, it cannot be measured. Hanging out in the abyss, time would pass beyond an instant, and next thing you know you're alive again.

>>15273290
I don't care about antinatalism, why should I bother 'refuting' it?

>>15273290
Post body you miserable anti-human smear of dogshit. Enemy to the human race. Start with yourself you fatalistic cretin.

>>15276890
imagine thinking humanity offers anything more than vanity

>>15273339
Here's the thing, my genes suck. I want my child to have a good life.

>>15277093
If that is so, anti-natalists are the ugly face of humanity, because their entire philosophical position is one of vanity. Think about it. You get to be both a victim and virtuous without doing virtually anything. If someone tells you that you're a loser, you just respond by saying "I wish I hadn't been born, then I wouldn't have been a loser" and you continue being a loser. If someone tells you that you are a failure for not having kids despite being in your mid-30s, you whip out the "Gotcha"- "having kids is evil and base, and I am too intelligent to reproduce." As if your intelligence isn't just vanity. As if your "morality" isn't just vanity. Anything that is worn on the face becomes vanity, and anti-natalism can only be worn on the face if one is expected to get something from it aside from the self-satisfaction of being "moral" and "smart," which quickly proves to be insufficient.

>>15276749
It is not bad that a good thing must come to an end. Even atheists can believe this, how else do you think they get by without tearing out their hair and beating their chests daily over fear of death? Not all atheists are transhumanists with delusions of immortality knocking on our door, either.

>>15277127
Antinatalism coincides with philosophical pessimism, so you're not proving anything by portraying antinatalists as self-righteous or hypocritical as most admit that they are as worthless and full of vain as the rest of humanity. You have absolutely no argument against justified misanthropy other than ad homs depicting the other as "a loser," a normie argument no matter how you frame it.

>>15277172
Then, pray tell, why do they argue at all? Do they like hearing their own voice? Is it just because they're natural-born geniuses who can't go ten minutes without quibbling over syllogisms?

The only possible real agency I have over someone else without breaking the law is having a child and forcing them to live as miserably as I have.

>>15273335
>Because antinatalism is end-game selfishness

Please, please, stop with using selfishness as a catch-all blanket for something you think is bad.

Procreation is selfishness, too. The vast majority of human action is selfish, i.e. egoistic.

>>15277195
So why does it matter if one is being selfish, if in doing so he is merely being human? The "procreation is selfish" argument falls apart, and I'd be willing to sacrifice the "anti-natalism is selfish" point for that

>>15277182
I feel you're referring to reddit r/childfree ANs which I do admit are quite annoying, but I have yet to see decent arguments on this board against Schopenhauerian pessimistic antinatalism, most of whom were driven to their position by prolonged intense suffering in life, which is what turns their nihilistic belief system into a living hell rather than the reddit "optimistic" nihilism that normies are infinitely more open to.

>>15277207
Because this selfishness is the result of a will that incentives people to prolong the suffering of life. What antinatalists want is for people to realize how little or nonexistent control they have over their urges and hopes and to abandon them to opt out of what we perceive to be a tragic deal, to exist.

I've never seen a natalist who actually gave Conspiracy a read, even though it addresses all their regarded 'refutations'. It's almost like deep down they know how wrong they are and can't bear a thought of facing it.

>>15273290
Natalists are spiritually suppressed animal worshippers.

>>15273290
1. Their argument rests on a poorly defined definition of suffering.
2. Their argument assumes, but never so much as attempts to prove, that suffering is wrong/bad/immoral.
3. Their argument assumes, but never so much as attempts to prove, that it is wrong/bad/immoral to make others suffer.

tl;dr their arguments are full of holes and assumptions that do not make sense

>>15277093
You'd only think vanity is bad if you were a schlubby, worthless bag of lard. Hit the fucking gym and get laid

So is philosophy just people telling each other “here is how I feel, change my mind”?

>>15273521
>How is pain is bad an arbitrary axiom?
1. Pain is a physiological state that does not necessarily have any moral valence.
2. The fact that some people experience pain at the hands of others does not necessarily have any moral valence.
3. The fact that something hurts does not necessarily mean that that thing has any moral valence.
4. Directly causing pain to others by, for instance, dropping a bomb on their heads is not necessarily immoral.
5. Indirectly causing pain to others by, for instance, delivering an order to drop a bomb on someone's head is not necessarily immoral.
6. The fact that suffering exists and is unavoidable does not necessarily mean that life itself is not worth living.
7. The fact that suffering exists and is unavoidable does not necessarily mean that either life or the creation of life are immoral.
...and so on and so forth. You have given us no reason to accept this axiom. Indeed, life itself cannot function if we accept this axiom, because we must cause suffering and death to all manner of creatures, man, beast, and plant, in order to sustain our existence. Furthermore, we exist in competing social units, now organized on the level of states, that must from time to time cause great harm to those within and without our borders to sustain ourselves. The ultimate logical conclusion that can be drawn from this axiom is, at best, the destruction of the human race, and, at worst, the destruction of all life. It is infantile, sophomoric, and moronic.
Please stop posting these threads. I suggest that you devote your time to reading something other than depressive literature, and perhaps take the time to exercise every once in a while.

>>15273716
Holy based

>>15273290
They do, you just don't read them

What is more important, what a book says or what a book doesn't say?

>>15274221
Cool, then you're a faggot with retarded inexpressible opinions

>>15277770
fuck the book, it was probably written by a bitch-ass nigger

>>15277687
Nah, just linguistic confusion

Hello siffering is not bad because bad is good so I plan to have many many kids to preserve my genes
Idk just kill me

You're all losers
ad hominem is bad but bad does not exist

>>15277704
Even if you're right you will never soothe the pain of anybody telling him that it is just "a physiological state that doesn't necessarily have any moral valence". This is borderline sociopathy. Pain is the most vivid proof that we are alive and just discarding it as a meaningless biological phenomenone won't change anything.

>>15278132
>you will never soothe the pain of anybody telling him that it is just "a physiological state that doesn't necessarily have any moral valence".
That's not the point of rational argument.
>This is borderline sociopathy.
Okay.
>Pain is the most vivid proof that we are alive and just discarding it as a meaningless biological phenomenone won't change anything.
Okay, very interesting, but none of that constitutes a counterargument.

>>15273290
You are an involuntary antinatalist because you've never had sex virgin loser lmao

>>15278157
Agree 100%
Pain is cool and fun and not bad

>>15278170
Is that what I said?

>>15278184
Prove that pain is not good or fun or cool
You can't because good and cool and fun are subjective

>>15278198
>You can't because good and cool and fun are subjective
That's correct, I cannot.

>suffering isn't bad
Antinatalism defeated in 3 words.

>>15273290
it's self-refuting at the population level. take the Shakers, for instance:
>Shakers were celibate; procreation was forbidden after they joined the society (except for women who were already pregnant at admission)
>By 1920, there were only 12 Shaker communities remaining in the United States.
>As of 2019, there is only one active Shaker village: Sabbathday Lake Shaker Village, in Maine.
>Consequently, many of the other Shaker settlements are now museums.
nobody cares about your ideology for self-extinguishing because it won't last - it never does.

>>15278224
I like it

>>15277300
this

>>15278224
Suffering is bad

>>15278457
Already been refuted by >>15278224

>>15278460
Sorry but
>>15278457

>>15273290
Because I want to have kids one day. They make me feel good.

>>15278468
Define 'feel good'

>>15273290
too many people on earth.

>>15278462
First in, first served. Maybe next time kid.

>>15273290
wow it must be because antinatalism is logically airtight thank you for showing me the light op

>>15278249
>ideology that advocates for the extinction is wrong because it leads to extinction
You might be retarded.

>>15279212
An ideology that advocates for extinction will inevitably just lead to its own extinction. If the ideology is self-destructive without having its goal in self-destruction itself, it sure as hell is wrong.

OP, you are not as clever as you think you are.
You are going against your only purpose in life. Seethe and philosophize all you want, you are not entitled to your rationality.

Antinatalism is predicated on atheism+pessimism. It’s rare for people to die as true pessimists for a reason.

Atheism is a contest of know-it-alls who quite literally don’t, and everyone who isn’t one cringes when they talk about it.

Essentially, people hate giant fucking narcissists who attempt to convert everyone to be as miserable as they are. You don’t have a ‘gift’ of knowledge; you voluntarily chose a pessimistic outlook but you decided it’s not good enough that only you have that outlook.

okay but where's the /lit/

>>15273290
human nature

>>15273303
Be careful that you don't get a cut from the edge of your fedora.

>>15279228
Ideas don't spread through the genes, dumbfuck. Schopenhauer and Nietzsche left no heir but here we are obsessing over their shit.

>>15279475
>Schopenhauer and Nietzsche left no heir but here we are obsessing over their shit.
Because we have the genes that lead to us obsessing over them. If we were genetically rats or dogs, we couldn't even begin to comprehend Nietszsche.

>>15279493
What does it have to do with anything? The point you were making is that antinatalism cannot be regarded as a valid ideology because it's self-destructive due to advising people against procreation. I demonstrated that the vivacity of ideas has no biological component and the ideas that advocate for extinction can propagate themselves just fine.

anti-natalists have lots of SEX, people don't want to accept this and will cope. That is all

>>15277580
>1. Their argument rests on a poorly defined definition of suffering.
All negative emotion.
>2. Their argument assumes, but never so much as attempts to prove, that suffering is wrong/bad/immoral.
My proof: Cut off your penis. It will hurt and emasculate you. Who is top say that such pain is bad or immoral?
>3. Their argument assumes, but never so much as attempts to prove, that it is wrong/bad/immoral to make others suffer.
Because I assume others to have similar capabilities to suffer and suffering in inherently bad. I am going to appeal to popularity and say that all living things agree on this. Even if subconscious.
>tl;dr their arguments are full of holes and assumptions that do not make sense
I don't understand how you can make ANY argument without making some assumptions. Make a argument that doesn't rely on your subjective experience

>>15279601
>My proof: Cut off your penis. It will hurt and emasculate you.
"But it hurts!" is not an argument.
>Who is top say that such pain is bad or immoral?
Exactly.
>and suffering in inherently bad
No. You have not proven and cannot prove that. You haven't even attempted to make a rational argument for that proposition. Why don't you go back to the other thread so the other anons and I can finish handing your ass to you?
> I am going to appeal to popularity and say that all living things agree on this.
The fact that we avoid pain does not mean that pain is inherently bad, any more than the fact that we avoid death means that death is inherently bad, any more than the fact that we avoid losing our jobs means that losing one's job is inherently bad.
>I don't understand how you can make ANY argument without making some assumptions.
Correct, rational argument relies on numerous axioms.
>Make a argument that doesn't rely on your subjective experience
That's exactly what I've done here and in the other thread.

if existence is so shitty then why don't anti-natalists kill themselves?

>>15273608
the problem isnt that we cant go to the grocery store, on the contrary it is that too many people are going to the grocery store and satisfying basic needs, resulting in intense amounts of plastics being produced aswell as harm to nature. This will ultimately cause everybody distress.

>>15277704
>1. Pain is a physiological state that does not necessarily have any moral valence.
Morals are subjective human deduction. Pain is the fundamental way of judgement. You can not think yourself out of pain. I don't care about intent. Because I argue that pain is immoral in of itself. You say that I am arbitrary but then you just get to make the rules on morals?
>6. The fact that suffering exists and is unavoidable does not necessarily mean that life itself is not worth living.
>7. The fact that suffering exists and is unavoidable does not necessarily mean that either life or the creation of life are immoral.
It is avoidable.
>Indeed, life itself cannot function if we accept this axiom, because we must cause suffering and death to all manner of creatures, man, beast, and plant, in order to sustain our existence.
But I don't care about existence! Why don't you prove to me that existence is fundamentally valuable? You dismiss your BIGGEST biological driver AVOIDANCE OF PAIN, but then just assume the importance of life because... ?
>It is infantile, sophomoric, and moronic.
Please stop posting these threads. I suggest that you devote your time to reading something other than depressive literature, and perhaps take the time to exercise every once in a while.
Just hide them if you can't stand arguing and have to be agreed with. I am relatively fit btw.
Surely I have a lot to read indeed. You say I am infanitile and moronic while just arguing with scary buzzword language.
I am fine with humanity ceasing to exist. It will happen anyway, nothing is eternal.

Natalism: when you bring sentient life into this world without asking its permission to feel a temporary high from feeling like God, then force this life to be your personal slave while demanding its unconditional love, until it grows up enough to make money, at which point you tell it to support you financially. During all this process you actively tell yourself that you're doing a good thing and this isn't at all a crime.

>>15279730
>Pain is the fundamental way of judgement.
No, it's not. Where did you get this ridiculous idea from? Not a single one of the world's major ethical and religious systems uses this as its standard of judgement.
>Because I argue that pain is immoral in of itself.
Okay, well, why don't you actually give us an argument? Prove it.
>You say that I am arbitrary but then you just get to make the rules on morals?
I have made no rules. I have stated a fact.
>It is avoidable.
Not for the living, and that's the point.
>But I don't care about existence! Why don't you prove to me that existence is fundamentally valuable? You dismiss your BIGGEST biological driver AVOIDANCE OF PAIN, but then just assume the importance of life because... ?
I have dismissed nothing but your sophistry. With that line, I attempted to show you how infantile your attempt at philosophy is. If you genuinely believe that the destruction of all life is an acceptable corollary to the philosophy you espouse, then go ahead, but stop posting these terrible threads.
>Just hide them if you can't stand arguing and have to be agreed with.
The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge the holes in your philosophical system and instead attempt to brute force the argument by redefining terms without providing any good reason for us to accept your definitions. You're a terrible debate partner. Go away already.

>>15279659
I don't know what other threat you are talking about. It is just going in circles at this point.
>The fact that we avoid pain does not mean that pain is inherently bad, any more than the fact that we avoid death means that death is inherently bad, any more than the fact that we avoid losing our jobs means that losing one's job is inherently bad.
We avoid losing our jobs and death because it is associated with pain. Inb4 careerchange or suicide. This is too just fleeing bigger perceived pains.
If you can think yourself out of suffering that is great. What is your outlook on life anon?

>>15277099
Really what are you doing here then? What is your endgame? Just to see other people suffer, because if you have no endgame other than becoming incredibly depressed from the lack of relationships and children maybe you should stop wasting our limited resources now.

>>15279730
> You can not think yourself out of pain

Not think per-se, but you actually can just be indifferent to pain.

>>15279799
>We avoid losing our jobs and death because it is associated with pain
No, we avoid losing our jobs because we require them to survive. We avoid death regardless of whether or not it is painful because that goes against our instinct for self-preservation.
>If you can think yourself out of suffering that is great.
I don't have to. I just accept it.
>What is your outlook on life anon?
I have two choices: Keep struggling, or give up, roll over, and die. I'm not willing to give up. I refuse. I don't have any real justification for it. I just refuse to give up, no matter how miserable I get. If you want me to put it in fancy words, I have been functioning solely on the basis of my will to continue living.

>>15279774
>No, it's not. Where did you get this ridiculous idea from? Not a single one of the world's major ethical and religious systems uses this as its standard of judgement.
I don't care about other stupid systems you read about. You believe yourself that pain is bad and is to be avoided. You can't even think yourself out of it. Try touching a burning hot stove and see what happens. Make an experiment!
>Not for the living, and that's the point.
But for the future living.
>The problem is that you refuse to acknowledge the holes in your philosophical system and instead attempt to brute force the argument by redefining terms without providing any good reason for us to accept your definitions. You're a terrible debate partner. Go away already.
I think it would be best if you would just give your own outlook on life and pain then

>>15279826
>No, we avoid losing our jobs because we require them to survive. We avoid death regardless of whether or not it is painful because that goes against our instinct for self-preservation.
Fine, loosing your financial stability is related with mental suffering but I agree that the will to live superceeds pain. A irrational urge.
>I don't have to. I just accept it.
I accept it too.And we both think pain is bad. No we don't think we FEEL that pain is bad. Our feefees is all that matters in the end
>I have two choices: Keep struggling, or give up, roll over, and die. I'm not willing to give up. I refuse. I don't have any real justification for it. I just refuse to give up, no matter how miserable I get. If you want me to put it in fancy words, I have been functioning solely on the basis of my will to continue living.
I am not denying your will to life, I am rather optimistic too even if it isn't really warranted by anything. I just think it takes immense arrogance to take the risk of placing another person in this world.

>>15279830
>You believe yourself that pain is bad and is to be avoided.
No, I don't. This is why I go out and exercise and come home with my entire body aching and in pain. Furthermore, the fact that we dislike something does not mean that it is immoral. These are two completely different things.
>But for the future living.
Neither here nor there.
>I think it would be best if you would just give your own outlook on life and pain then
I don't have to, but a good read would be the Enchiridion, by Epictetus.
>>15279868
See above.

>>15279890
>No, I don't. This is why I go out and exercise and come home with my entire body aching and in pain. Furthermore, the fact that we dislike something does not mean that it is immoral. These are two completely different things.
I have acknowledged that people go through small pains for greater perceived pleasures or avoidance of greater pains. Maybe you feel worrie about loosing muscle mass during lock down right now? That is some amount of mental pain right there.
I just stated that I think that pain is immoral because ouch. Yes it is that "moronic". Morals are still subjective and entirely based on like and dilike for things
>I don't have to
Who says that you don't have to? I say so because reasons

antinatalism threads are so goddamn passionate kek
i love this

>>15280383
passionately filling your boiwomb

>>15273290
My refutation is thus:
I am an egoist.
I like children.
Therefore I pursue my end of having children.
I would do it even without considering the perspective of negative utilitarianism that permeates antinatalism. However I also disagree with utilitarianism in general (no matter the degree of negative feelings in there), and I am very skeptical of that sadboy overview of life of pessimists.
Last but not least, it has God's blessing, although chastity is superior.
I thus think that antinatalism is wrong on several levels.

>>15280528
Why is being proudly retarded so fashionable these days?

>>15280528
based catholic child molester

>>15277259
>most of whom were driven to their position by prolonged intense suffering in life, which is what turns their nihilistic belief system into a living hell
My point is why argue at all? Why not subject your own beliefs to that same sacred pessimism you hold and realize that you'll never convince enough people to make a difference, and that there are no morals, and life will always exist or come into existence and create suffering somewhere. It's an endless fight you can never win, and yet you're trying to fight it despite having "intense suffering in life," which, as a side note, doesn't always lead to a living hell/optimistic nihilism. What do you get out of it? Less people will suffer? Who cares? Do you even like arguing about this?

>Because this selfishness is the result of a will that incentives people to prolong the suffering of life
Why is life bad? Because it has suffering? Why is suffering bad? First of all, why should we avoid suffering at any cost (assuming that because it is bad, we ought to avoid it)? Second of all, is there an alternative to the "suffering of life?"

>>15277300
Surely, since you have read it, you will be able to make reasonable arguments against us in this thread. That is, if you are up to the task

>>15278479
Feel pleasure, likely. "Feel good" isn't referring to good vs bad as in "pleasure is good and suffering is bad," he was merely substituting the word pleasure with feeling good.

>>15279364
Despite claiming to accept their "inferiority" and "worthlessness," if is quite obvious anti-natalists and pessimists still need to vindicate themselves somehow, for it's too hard for them to truly believe that they're worthless. Thus, they spin the myth of the "tortured pessimist/misanthrope genius" and think that that is them, when in fact they are just ignoring their favorite quote- "Look at your body- a painted puppet, a poor toy of jointed parts ready to collapse, a diseased and suffering thing with a head full of false imaginings."

>>15279730
>pain is immoral in of itself
So all it takes is to inject someone with a soporific before killing him, right? That's totally fine? Why is pain immoral in and of itself, furthermore? It is a human emotion that can be negated. If the transhumanists are to be believed, we can just become cyborgs in the future and never feel physical pain anymore, perhaps even emotional pain (which is even more subjective than physical pain).

>You say that I am arbitrary but bla bla poo poo pee pee
I'm not trying to do anything right now except argue against you, and this doesn't change the arbitrariness of your idea of morality, moreover of morality itself.

>It is avoidable
By suicide, yes

>I am fine with humanity ceasing to exist. It will happen anyway, nothing is eternal.
Some intelligent race will probably evolve to replace us, if there aren't already aliens out there.

I don't have to come up with a refutation cause it's a self solving problem

>>15279752
>when you bring sentient life into this world without asking its permission
Next time I try to bring sentient life into this world, I'll make sure to ask its permission first

>to feel a temporary high from feeling like God
That's not what it's about. Of course, there are people who beget children accidentally, but then the "high" would be that of orgasm, as I doubt people feel like "God" when they reproduce. That just sounds like some uninformed stereotype

>then force this life to be your personal slave
Yes, because my baby will pay for its hospital fees, crib, toys, and my toddler will pay for his/her own toys, food, clothing, and so on and so forth. You get the idea. I'll be a slave to this child, but I don't see anything wrong with it


>while demanding its unconditional love
I'd like for my child to love me, but at the barest minimum I ask for it to respect me. If it would rather have not existed, then it can go de-exist itself or, preferably grow-up.

>until it grows up enough to make money
Obviously, I will help him/her financially along the way. I will buy him/her a car and help him/her with his/her expenses.

>at which point you tell it to support you financially
Considering how much I've given it its entire life, that's not too preposterous of a thing to ask. Either way, I wouldn't ask that of my child unless I was really poorly off, and even then I'd pull my own weight.

Sounds like you just had shitty parents, or a misconception of what parents are like. Call me privileged all you like, but that's alright by me. I'll indubitably raise a happier child than you'd raise.

>>15279924
>I have acknowledged that people go through small pains for greater perceived pleasures or avoidance of greater pains
But they still go through "small pains."

>Maybe you feel worrie about loosing muscle mass during lock down right now?
I can just do body weight exercises, and I have weights as well.

>That is some amount of mental pain right there
That mental pain only exists if you do not love your body and accept it as it is. It only arises from insecurity and a disability (to come to terms with your emotions, as obsessing over every inch of muscle won't make any more grow).

>>15280413
hnggh

>>15280570
Why is "Why is being proudly retarded so fashionable these days?" an argument?

>>15280629
>So all it takes is to inject someone with a soporific before killing him, right? That's totally fine? Why is pain immoral in and of itself, furthermore? It is a human emotion that can be negated. If the transhumanists are to be believed, we can just become cyborgs in the future and never feel physical pain anymore, perhaps even emotional pain (which is even more subjective than physical pain).
Ehhh, in reality this would still cause emotional suffering. Not only for relative but knowing that there is some guy going around "putting people out out their misery". But I agree that ceasing to exist is not a bad thing.
Transhumanism is wishfull thinking. WHy take that gamble at all if there is nothing wrong with non existence? A world full of sentient pleasure bots is just as moral as a world with no sentient beings at all.
If nobody is deprived of a pleasure it is morally neutral.
>I'm not trying to do anything right now except argue against you, and this doesn't change the arbitrariness of your idea of morality, moreover of morality itself.
Then it is arbitrary.
>By suicide, yes
Suicide still causes more auffering than not having kids
>Some intelligent race will probably evolve to replace us, if there aren't already aliens out there.
Just because something is always going to happen doesn't make it moral

>>15280718
>Sounds like you just had shitty parents, or a misconception of what parents are like. Call me privileged all you like, but that's alright by me. I'll indubitably raise a happier child than you'd raise.
That is what most parents think. Good luck
>That mental pain only exists if you do not love your body and accept it as it is. It only arises from insecurity and a disability (to come to terms with your emotions, as obsessing over every inch of muscle won't make any more grow).
So you are conscious your subconsciously thinking that suffering is somehow deserved by some virtues of character.
I disagree, "deserving" is a stupid notion on unclear subjective convictions that aren't even thought out. For me suffering is bad regardless

>>15275922
>incomparable to the suffering an average person goes through. What are you advocating for is a generational pozyscheme.
why exactly should I trust you to be the judge of all suffering that every human has faced? why should I trust your definition of suffering
>Sure heavily incentivizing people to not breed or adopt would reduce a lot of suffering.
There is no explanation on how this would be implemented, or how you would avoid the existential crisis people would face over no longer being able to fulfill their biological imperative, which would arguably lead to a lot of suffering, ironically
> Because it feels bad obviously. What else do you want to base your ethics around? Do you avoid pain? Why don't you gauge your eyes out?
So you’re again defining suffering and pain as nothing more than a physiological feeling? How do you explain pain that leads to net positive outcomes, like exercise, or snapping a bone back into place?
>Read both, sorry Mr Ancap. How am I nihilistic when I have a clear moral framework?? Fuck off you don't know what you are talking about.
I don't understand how it is possibly narcistic to be antinatalist. I could say the same about natalism...
>This line of thought btfos antinatalism, ironically
>Non existent people aren't happy
>Fuck off
And you lost.

>>15281290
I won't explain the same stuff over and over again.
Consider yourself the winner by ignorance

>>15280718
>Sounds like you just had shitty parents, or a misconception of what parents are like. Call me privileged all you like, but that's alright by me. I'll indubitably raise a happier child than you'd raise.
said the faggot named "Smegmy the Clown" on 4chan.