/lit/ - Literature

who cares

it was refuted the second the first anti-natalist was born

>>15344148
it seems perfectly coherent to see potential pleasure that wasn't realized as something bad. thus we can write off benatars asymmetry, by far the strongest argument for AN. the normal answer from benatar to this has been "then why aren't you doing everything you can to create more children". this ignores of course the practicality of the situation that living such a life would defeat its own purpose because the people would suffer, their children would suffer and the earths population as a whole would suffer from overpopulation.

when ANs claim life possesses more suffering then pleasure, and write off peoples evaluation of their own suffering as biased or wrongful or something, they don't reflect over the fact that even suffering at some point is later recollected as a character building positive experience, or as a contrast which made their pleasure even stronger (more meaningful subjectively, the suffering causes further pleasure than would have been without it). nothing inherently prioritizes the original suffering to the subsequent experiencing of recollecting on that suffering. this raises a serious problem for the claim that people are wrong when they evaluate their lives as good, and their attempts to refute this by weighing up experiences without consulting the subject itself.

benatar himself has never debated with a real philosopher and even in his interview with cosmicskeptic he was unable to adequately justify his positions. I don't know who the best philosopher currently alive would be best to put him up against, but I suspect that in a real encounter with a real philosopher he'd be in serious trouble and that it would basically deflate the whole contemporary surge in AN.

>>15344323
to add to this the distinction persons in the future not yet born and persons in the future already born seems very flaky and hard to justify on classical anti-natalist grounds. this would imply instant extinctionism.

None of this to say that political or personal anti-natalism is always wrong, but that it as a fundamental philosophical position has problems.

Test

Utilitarianism was a mistake.

>>15344323
based. anti-natalists are fucking lame

>>15344148
>"Nooooooo my life is bad therefore we shouldn't exist!!"

>>15344653
That pretty much sums up antinatalism, and why no one (that's not a subhuman social outcast) gives it any consideration.

>when ANs claim life possesses more suffering then pleasure
It's irrelevant what you or me think the ratio of suffering and happiness in the world is. Whether someone suffers or is happy is decided by subjective experience, and so the only one that has a right to make judgements on it is the person that would be born. Obviously as it's unborn, it's unable to give its opinion on whether it wants or does not want to be born, and so there's no justification for giving birth to it.
There's no logical way to refute this, except for pure utilitarianism which is just stupidity in any case.

If you're anti-birth you might as well nuke the planet

>>15344148

Yes. Literally no one with more than seven braincells thinks the goal of life is not to zero sum avoid suffering.

>>15344148

>Has anti-natalism ever truly been refuted?

Yes. Literally anyone with more than seven functioning brain cells will tell you life isn't about zero sum avoiding suffering.

>>15344323
>strongest argument for AN
KEK. Read some compelling "pessimistic" philosophers like Cioran or Cabrera, utilitaristic antitalism is the most braindead iteration.
>character building positive experience
Yes, shit like Fibrodysplasia epidermolysis bullosa really builds character

>>15345276
>Yes, shit like Fibrodysplasia epidermolysis bullosa really builds character
The point still stands

>>15344683
sure is convenient that everyone who refuses the Game is a subhuman social outcast, ain't it?

>>15345326
>sure is convenient that everyone who wants to boycott the Olympics is handicapped

>>15345117
>Literally anyone with more than seven functioning brain cells will tell you life isn't about zero sum avoiding suffering.
Then what is it about? I can't figure it out honestly.

>>15345343
>Olympic athletes want to play in the Olympics and need to believe those who don't are failures

Wow really exploded the coordinates of the entire debate there

>>15345276
>According to Cabrera they form the basic structure to human life, which he analyzes through what he calls naturalistic phenomenology, drawing freely from thinkers such as Martin Heidegger, Arthur Schopenhauer and Friedrich Nietzsche
garbage, no arguments to be found.
>Cioran
more of a poet.
>Yes, shit like Fibrodysplasia epidermolysis bullosa really builds character
cherry picking. nice way of avoiding responding to the recollection argument in general. imperical reasons for total AN is the dumbest approach of all and only appeals to desperately depressive people.

>>15344148
The logical conclusion of antinatalism is to become a serial killer who targets viably reproductive humans (ie all men who can ejaculate, children, and women who have not started menopause). Then once you as an antinatalist have killed your fair share of human beings, you commit suicide. Surely the pain all the people you kill will suffer is far less than the pain which will be experienced by future humans born.
Clearly this is wrong. Refuted.

>>15345359
>don't argue about this empirically
>THAT'S CHERRY PICKING BRO WHAT'S YOUR SAMPLE SIZE BRO GOTTA DO THIS RIGOROUSLY AND EMPIRICALLY RARR
>he's a poet bro he's got nothing to say

autist

>>15344937
"you" of tomorrow hasn't come into existence yet and can't give his consent to do so either. are you arguing for immediate extinctionism?
>except for pure utilitarianism which is just stupidity in any case
no u

>>15345388
no it isn't at all you fucking psychotic

>>15345326
sure is also convenient that anti-natalists have created their own mini-society within society that calls everyone else subhuman, uneducated breeders. Funny how life and the DNA molecule brainwashes you into making your life feel like it has value by mitigating your obvious worthlessness.

>>15345351
That's your problem.

>>15345356
But ANs are failures.
I am not exaggerating when I say that I have literally never seen even a superficially happy or successful person say
>alright, my life's been good, but I don't wanna roll the dice with any kids I have
No, it's always these bottom of the barrel freaks and miserable histrionics.

The strongest argument against an AN is to openly shove promotion of those he ideologically quarrels with to breed and reproduce, effectively stifling his position in the world, potentially minimizing him and his influence. I would argue every AN would become a N for their given home team, and for that reason, because he would betray his own ideas to who he is, he would

stop being a CaliNihilist retard who thinks he's intelligent for promoting his sterilized, corporate message.

>>15345414
because you wouldn't expect people on the inside of life's "accomplishments" TO be anti-natalist you utter fucking simping retard.

find me a hobo who preaches the values of rapacious world-eating capitalism and then we'll talk faggot

>>15345405
Yes it is.
>wahhh wahhh me born and experience pain and suffering wahhh wahhh this bad
>life should avoid pain and suffering wahhhh wahhhh
>wahhhh therefore people shouldn't give birth wahhh wahhh
If giving birth causes pain and suffering, then the pain and suffering caused by the murder of all reproductively viable humans would be minuscule compared to the pain and suffering antinatalists claim all born humans experience.

>>15345414
I am arguing against ANs ITT but
>I am not exaggerating when I say that I have literally never seen even a superficially happy or successful person say
>>alright, my life's been good, but I don't wanna roll the dice with any kids I have
this is fucking retarded. I'm sure you could find a number of people with horrible inheritable diseases like the one 13 had in House that think this way ( and they do so rightfully). You have to separate the philosophical position of AN from personal and specific political positions. Otherwise literally every person who actually can think is going to laugh at you.

>>15345452
no, it isn't, because you're a simping faggot utilitarian applying simping faggot utilitarian rules to a system of thought that pre-exists benatar and his ilk by almost 1,500 years. you don't know shit. shut up.

>>15345390
lol, there you have it folks. go be depressed if you want, but don't pretend it's a legitimate, intellectual position for you.

>>15345463
Antinatalists don't know shit either. Why do you think these threads are made? They are made to make fun of retard antinatalists like you. You're just scared because you've been confronted with the ugly truth of your retarded self-centered ideology.

>>15345443
But that's the point mongo, ANs literally want nobody to have kids just because they themselves are feeling sad :(
>>15345459
I don't get your point - you brought up 13, but one of the main plot threads in the series was how self destructive she was and ultimately unhappy because of it

>>15345476
no one cares about getting published in your faggot journal

>This thread again
You get your ass handed to you every time you come here. Why do you do it? Are you a masochist?

>>15344683
>in this thread
> one (that's not a subhuman social outcast) gives it any consideration
>That pretty much sums up antinatalism
Lol

>>15345488
no you retard you can't accuse ANs of being intellectually dishonest because they feel bad and claim they're refuted by those who, surprise surprise, feel good instead. why should I listen to those on top if the bottom are excluded? wow, isn't it convenient that those who decide the ultimate value of life are those who benefit the most from it? how awfully, terribly convenient for the partisans of this rat grinder, isn't it? faggot.

>>15344653
t. masochist with Stockholm Syndrome

Not really it seems to be a rather... subjective viewpoint

>>15344148
Thousands of times.
This is not literature

>>15345493
no one cares about engaging with your tfwsad feels.

>>15344343
What terminal values do you consider better?

>>15345401
The difference is that in order for the "you of tommorrow" to not exist the "you of today" would need to die. The consent of the future you can't be confirmed, so the consent of current you takes priority.

>>15345412
>That's your problem

Not an answer.

>>15345541
Consent can be withdrawn bitch, even after it was given.

>>15345488
was she a failure? how much are you willing to bet that there hasn't ever existed a "successful" person who chose for themselves personally to not have children on some similar grounds most intelligent, empathetic people would consider legitimate? Note you can't define failure as person who didn't have or didn't want to have children. That makes it circular. Your original comment was STUPID.

>>15345515
And why should we listen to the bottom?
I'd tell you to end your sufferings and jump in front of a train but being the coward you are you'll bring up some sophistry like Cuckatar and all your gay little heroes, too scared to actually end this "horrible" life

>>15345582
why should we listen to the top, blinded by life's pleasures?

>>15345541
>The consent of the future you can't be confirmed, so the consent of current you takes priority.
how doesn't this apply to future persons as well? Note: I don't particularly care about consent so it's not an important point to me anyway, but I'm interested in seeing where you take it.

>Dude im really empathetic its just that my ideology would lead to there not being humans anymore if taken seriously

>>15345575
I didn't say they didn't exist, I said that I hadn't met one, implying they're a rarity.
I'm just pointing out that nearly all ANs are arguing from an emotional standpoint while professing to do it from a rational one.

>>15345517
>ad hominem and diagnosing without any substantial evidence
If psychiatrists were like you we'd be even more fucked

>>15345535
Why are pleasure and pain the source of morality/ethics?

>>15345542
Yes it is. The point is that "what life is about" is subjective. If you can't figure out a reason aside from "not reproducing" (which is not even your base belief, utilitarianism probably is).

>>15345541
Can the consent of the unborn be confirmed?

>>15345606
welcome to philosophy and paradox faggot, life itself is anti-life.

>>15345587
Nice poetry goober, let me give it a try
>why should we listen to the bottom, drunk off each other's cum

>>15345608
neither of those things follow.

>>15345620
retard thinks instagram celebrities speak for Being. kill yourself

There is no refuting antinatalism. Here's a short summary:
>"HAHA THEN KILL YOURSEL-"
If you weren't born you wouldn't have to drive a knife onto your own throat just to escape this life, you wouldn't have to risk offending some deity that will throw you into hell if it exists for doing so, and you wouldn't need to hear clowns with no empathy telling you to kill yourself as if this somehow is mean to show how life is worth living, or how this makes for a good word to have children in. None of this refutes anti-natalism, and perhaps just strengthens it. Watch the absolute amount of scurrying, ad hominem and goal post moving to deflect this.
>Well but some people are happy.
Yes, some people live average lives. Perhaps a lot of people, even those who suffer, manage to gather enough coping mechanisms to balance it out before a reasonably merciful death (AKA dying swiftly, usually around your 50s to 60s).
But since you were put into this world without anyone asking you, and you don't know if you'll be one of those, making this bet with some other person without having a very good justification is immoral.
>Well I have a very good reason to have children.
Saving your marriage is not a good reason. Needing hands to work on your farm is not a good reason. None of these things should fall on the shoulders of your progeny. Wanting to perpetuate your family or your ego by keeping your last name alive is also not their responsibility. They might want to bear all of these things, but the fact is they are not mandated to bear them. You are making these choices for them. You know how much people rage about circumcision because it happens before the child can consent to it? That is nothing close to the amount of suffering a person goes through in a lifetime, yet this doesn't stop people from birthing others, even when they are wholly unprepared to raise a child.

I don't really need to look at the replies to this post to know the kind of dishonest shit that will ensue because I've seen this a million times. Just have your fucking kids, hope you pass away peacefully and etc like everyone else and try to rationalize your egoist needs to put more people in this planet despite being part of the only species smart enough to choose not to do so.

>>15345632
I see you're still alive, hypocrite that you are

>>15345602
>>15345612
Future/unborn persons don't exist. Not being born is the normal state of things, and being born changes that, like current people existing is the normal state of things and dying changes that. You don't need consent to not give birth any more than to not kill people.

>>15344148
You can't refute something that didn't have a point to begin with.

>>15344148
Why is suffering bad?

If breeders do not need moral justification to start life, are they okay with being killed? After all, if an act of starting life needs not be justified, it follows logically that the reverse of it, ending life, similarly should be done at will.

>>15345684
>If breeders do not need moral justification to start life, are they okay with being killed?
>are they okay with
You're conflating subjective emotional states with ethical claims. Murder is not necessarily wrong, but very few people will consent to be murdered.
>After all, if an act of starting life needs not be justified, it follows logically that the reverse of it, ending life, similarly should be done at will.
Care to explain how?

>>15345684
Start killing people then faggot.

>>15345620
kek
>>15345652
>Future/unborn persons don't exist
you of 20 years is a future person.
>Not being born is the normal state of things
what? how can anything which doesn't exist even have a state? Even if you say that of all possible realizeable creatures, the ones that end up being born at some point is a tiny minority of those, that doesn't give a reason why it's bad.
>like current people existing is the normal state of things and dying changes that.
why? things die all the time, why isn't that the normal state? there is always a time in the future where some thing won't exist any longer so ceasing to exist before some quantity of time has passed is the "normal" thing and so AN turns to extinctionism. This is meta-physics and gobbledy-gook you can't justify.
>You don't need consent to not give birth any more than to not kill people.
see extinctionism.
>>15345684
no because it increases suffering and prevents future pleasure.

>>15345642
>NOOO YOU CAN'T DOO THINGS I DON'T CONDONE

>>15345716
I meant normal as in how things would continue to be if not changed. To come into existence from non-existence is a change of states, and requires justification

>>15345652
> Not being born is the normal state of things
So, nonexistence is the normal state of existence?

>being born changes that
What happens? Do you go from nonexistence to existence?

>current people existing is the normal state of things and dying changes that
But I thought "nonexistence" was normal, therefore dying would return an abnormal state back to normal. Of course, neither pre-birth or death are normal "states"because no one exists then

>You don't need consent to not give birth any more than to not kill people
There is a difference between birthing a person that will die and killing someone who is already alive

>>15345642
>you wouldn't have to risk offending some deity that will throw you into hell if it exists
Self refuted

> somehow is mean to show how life is worth living
That's something we believe and you do not believe. We are just extending your belief into possible venues of action (i.e. suicide)

> None of this refutes anti-natalism
That's not the point. It's a reductio ad absurdum, but who knows? Nothing is too absurd for today's people.

>But since you were put into this world without anyone asking you
Did you ask the millions of babies that you are not conceiving every second of your life for their consent not to be born? No, instead you project your life and wishes onto theirs. Of course, I don't maintain this position because nonexistent entities don't have consent.


>making this bet with some other person without having a very good justification is immoral
So, is it bad to do something that bears with it a risk? What makes a reason "very good?"

>Wanting to perpetuate your family or your ego by keeping your last name alive is also not their responsibility
No shit. But they have their own wishes that they will follow now that they are alive, and I will suffer (and have suffered) more than they. Furthermore, I will slave away the remaining years of my life to provide for my children and their dreams. Furthermore, all this consent and imposition jongleurism is unimportant, as, if you are a utilitarian (as most ANs I've seen thus far), consent is violable so long as doing so yields a net increase in pleasure.

> even when they are wholly unprepared to raise a child
You don't need to raise a child if you are unprepared. I'm not an absolutist (like ANs), which, at times, is the easiest type of position to maintain.

>Just have your fucking kids, hope you pass away peacefully and etc like everyone else
Such sincerity!

>being part of the only species smart enough to choose not to do so.
Should we not prevent the other species that aren't smart enough from reproducing?

>>15345684
It does not follow, as the two are entirely different things. Furthermore, people will fight back, as they want to live, so do so at your own risk. Unborn, non-existent entities have no interests or consent so a deprivation of pain for them is not a good thing.

>>15345774
Is non-existent a good/neutral/bad state? What about existence? Furthermore, how do you know that non-existence and existence are good/bad/neutral?

>>15344148
Life is pretty good, so yes

>>15345819
I'll just put it all in a simple way, since this is going in circles.

existence (good/bad) -> death (nothingness)
Non-existence (nothingness) -> existence (good/bad)

The above is murder, the below is giving birth. You can't claim one of those as good and the other as evil. If you want you can replace death (nothingness) with afterlife (good/bad), but it won't change anything.

>>15344148
Why haven’t you killed yourself

why don't anti natalists just kill themselves.

>>15345887
Yes, but they are different. Sure, both are transitions, but the above and below have two, different starting points. Therefore, it does not follow that because one is permissible, the other is also permissible.

>>15344148
>"Suffer."
How? How exactly is life suffering? Because you're deppressed, you think everyone else is too? Maybe try going outside, or maybe talking to someone, you pathetic faggot.

>>15345774
the persons didn't exist before they came into existence though so it doesn't necessarily make a lot of change that you need their permission to "change" any of "their" states.

>>15346007
>How? How exactly is life suffering?

t. estrogenized urbanite

>>15344148

Easy peasy. Existance > Non-existance

>>15346007
based

>>15345642
>Perhaps a lot of people, even those who suffer, manage to gather enough coping mechanisms to balance it out
what makes you the arbiter of what is genuine pleasure and what is just a "coping" mechanism. you digress from evaluating life purely in terms of pleasure and pain here, from the perspective of the subject it doesn't matter. I don't see how there could be any AN arguments after one leaves this one behind. (except specific arguments about ie overpopulation or inheritable diseases).

>>15346044
>learning to overcome suffering through means other than selfish, self-vindicating philosophies makes you low T
>urbanites have it easy

>>15346092
He bondburgered your sister? She's into some weird shit man.

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bondburger

>A sex act in which the man pours ketchup and mustard in between the woman's butt cheeks, then puts his penis between said cheeks and squishes them together while saying "Do you expect me to talk?"

>>15346007

It's very grounded and sensible to believe that whatever hardships you are experiencing a lot of other people are experiencing as well or have in the past
Most people are suffering on a regular basis far more than you realize

>>15346092
yes all of time and space conspired to be the background for your epic Nietzschean character arc. fuck off faggot you might as well live in the ball pit at mcdonald's for all the "reality" you "know"

>>15346137
Are you mad?

>>15345642
If you think a deity exists and will throw you into Hell, then believe, do what he says to avoid that fate, and improve your life in the process.

If you think there is no deity, and you're just here to suffer for no reason and then rot in the dirt; then kill yourself, and risk nothing.

If you don't know whether there is a deity or not, then you'd better fucking fugure it out if you have any intention of escaping this double minded indecisive, nihilistic, hell, you've locked yourself in.

I'll even give you a little hint:
There is a God, and He is Jesus Christ.
Read, and learn from the bible, and stop destroying yourself.

Many of us have been lead by the world into this horrible, nihilistic, suicide cult. Don't let them fool you. I'm praying for you friend, because you remind me of myself when I was living in despair.

"5 If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach, and it will be given to him. 6 But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for he who doubts is like a wave of the sea driven and tossed by the wind. 7 For let not that man suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8 he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways."
-James 1

>>15346297
as always christfags derail an already shit thread and kill it for good, no survivors.

>>15346115
6th james bond, 9th order at mcdonalds
69'd

>>15346309
What else is there to live tor but Christ? Self indulgence? How's that working out for you? Feel content yet?

>>15346309
>killing a shit thread
Sounds pretty based to me

>>15346351
What does living "for" Christ entail? Like, do you he looks on your pathetic evangelizing in this den of sin and smiles?

>>15346351
I'm not even one of the anti-natalists or utilitarians from the thread, retard. But I could not imagine anything more bleak than living the entirety of your life for some random semite who lived 2000 years that maybe, just maybe, had some divine quality, but that doesn't matter really. All this is, of course, a desperate attempt to take responsibility for meaning out of your hands and place it in the hands of some other hypothetical omnipotent being so you do not have to confront the question "why to live" yourself, because you imagine the only alternative is hedonistic nihilism; you said it yourself.

>>15346411
The only alternative is hedonistic nihilism, but hedonism doesn't necessarily entail short-term, inconsiderate self-indulgence. It might be in your interest to service your society to receive long-term pleasure and security.

>desperate attempt to take responsibility for meaning out of your hands
So what? What meaning is there if there is no permanence/are no repercussions to your actions?

>But I could not imagine anything more bleak than living the entirety of your life for some random semite
Hyperbole

>so you do not have to confront the question
We have, and we concluded with Christ. What's with this mischaracterization of Christians being too lazy or helpless to find meaning in life without God? If I were an atheist, I'd probably delude myself into finding meaning in some silly notion like the rest of you.

>>15344148
It's refuted to those who are currently living a good life. I guess if you wish you were never born you shouldn't reproduce, but I'm glad I was born, and will reproduce and do everything I can to make sure that child is glad they are born. At the end of the day, you either have to embrace darkness, nihilism, and sadness, or strive for light, purpose, and happiness. Anti-natalism is just admitting you are a failure and assuming that failure isn't just unique to your situation but the universal situation. It's just sad, really.

>>15346333
The number 9 isn't standardized faggot.

>>15346092
Silently whoppered

>>15346411
"I'm not even one of the anti-natalists or utilitarians from the thread, retard."
I never assumed you were.
The only presupposition to my question was that you don't believe in Christ, which you already made clear.

So then, I suppose you can answer my question.
What else is there to live for but Christ?

>>15346464
>So what? What meaning is there if there is no permanence/are no repercussions to your actions?
How can you prove these repercussions for one's actions exist? Doesn't it all just become a hypothetical thought experiment on why one should act morally (for simplicity; service your society, etc.) *in case* there might be repercussions, rather than prove the existence of the repercussions, in the christian sense, themselves?

>What's with this mischaracterization of Christians being too lazy or helpless to find meaning in life without God?
Because it is inherently lazy, and almost cowardly, as the Christian requires the only possible punishments from a possibly existing omnipotent being to act morally.

>>15346385
Read the bible, and do what it says.

>>15346474
>It's refuted to those who are currently living a good life.

and confirmed by those who aren't. retard

>>15346587
The will to power. I could not explain it any better than
>pic related

>>15346474
>antinatalists do nothing but generalize their misery onto the world
>does nothing but generalize his pleasure

mongoloid

>>15344148
>u can't do thing because i say it's bad
make me not do thing, then

Out of 39 unique posters ITT I wouldn't expect more than 1 or 2 tops to have children right now. You faggots sure love to "refute" natalism by offering antinatalists to kill themselves, yet your own existence is the refutation of your beliefs.

>>15346655
Being against anti-natalism doesn’t necessarily entail being for having as many children as possible. It is in fact, perfectly logically consistent to never have children at all yet still oppose anti-natalism. Why? Because anti-natalism is inherently extinctionist ideology.

>>15346736
noooo not my beingerino noooo not my heckin round of death and rebirth not the cutesy wootsy self-devouring snake of time noooo we have to live and die because my hypostasized lust for life said so nooooo

>>15346655
"Breeder" here, I have 9 kids.

>>15346768
how does it feel to give 9 souls the gift of death?

>>15346768
Pajeet or Tyrone?

>>15346768
Got a headache just reading this post tb-h.

>>15346655
see >>15344323

Still haven't received a rebut to this argument.

Life, in part, is defined by reproduction. Antinatalism states that reproduction is immoral. Therefore life, itself, is be immoral. Therefore why should any lifeform care whether or not what they are doing (reproducing) is immoral?

>>15344148
You can't ever truly refute a meme, anon.

>>15344148
>Suffering is bad

Not according to our Lord and Saviour

>>15344323
Benetar is not an antinatalist, refute Ligotti nigga

>>15346618
>>15346636
>missing the fact that I literally said those in a position of misery shouldn't reproduce and perpetuate their misery and those in a position of joy should reproduce to perpetuate their joy

>>15347430
>truth should be defined by what feels good

How do breeders refute the fact that mankind will inevitably come to an end sooner or later regardless of their cumsquirting efforts? A puny flu was enough to put the entire population on lockdown, how long until a virus a bit more potent than that comes along? If not virus, how long until a nuclear war, or lack of resources, or a solar flare, or a stray asteroid, or climate change, or something else wipes humanity the fuck out like it never existed? You can breeeeeed all you want but the game is already set, you're not making it out of this solar system.

>>15347442
Well you definitely shouldn't define it by what feels bad

>>15344148
Yes.

John 1:1

>>15347591
Ecclesiastes 4:1

Again I looked and saw all the oppression that was taking place under the sun: I saw the tears of the oppressed-- and they have no comforter; power was on the side of their oppressors-- and they have no comforter.

Ecclesiastes 4:2

And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive.

Ecclesiastes 4:3

But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

>>15347664
BURNT

>>15344148
Has there ever been a cohesive argument for anti-natalism?
OP's comic just seems to be a load of unsupported inconsistent drivel

>>15347903
Read Last Messiah

>>15347664
That's very interesting. I'm gonna check out Ecclesiastes now.