/lit/ - Literature

Their central axiom (it's better to not be born because that would cause more suffering to the world) is faulty because its' unquantifiable and unfalsifiable.
>plebbit
Go back

>>16200909
>antinatalism
Not a convincing position considering the core tenet of it is that life is suffering when studies seem to show that on an aggregate across all cultures people tend to be happy.

>>16200909
>the average human life is spent mostly in suffering
>the suffering is meaningless, as in, has no purpose and is only important in its quantity as relative to pleasure

Just make them prove their own premises. They can’t. The entire idea hinges on being able to judge everyone’s internal experience. 99.99% of ANs are just edgelords pulling off the biggest cope in history.

What really makes me think of antinatalism sometimes is how every child must have felt worthless at some point and thought that if they hadn't been born, they wouldn't have suffered.
Nobody really enjoys life. They just cope with it.

>>16201086
People tend to be happy because the alternative is depression which could lead to suicide. And neither of those things feel good.

>>16201225
Elaborate.

>>16200909
I have an antinatalist friend irl and I recently got them to admit that they’re basically just coping because they don’t want the responsibility of children

>>16201239
Feelings are deductive and conductive.
You can choose if you want to be happy even though the physical circumstances might be trash.
You can fool yourself through video games, drugs, and jokes to make yourself feel better temporarily even though you don't get enough to eat and have to wageslave away without the possibility of owning your own house.
In that moment of euphoria you are happy, even though its an existence thats a fate worse than death in the grand scheme because of the stress and lost hopes and dreams. If you time it well you can go from temporary moment to temporary moments to keep fooling yourself your whole life and then you can have kids who will repeat this process when you teach them how to cope.

>>16201216
>Nobody really enjoys life. They just cope with it.
>t.someone coping with their own depression by pretending that everyone else is miserable
Happiness truly does come from within, and yes it does require a level of comfortability, but it’s achievable for nearly all of us. One must learn to appreciate all the beauty in the world, which is helped by understanding it, even seemingly awful things have beauty to them through the truth they reveal, such as the Ichneumon wasp’s parasitism displays the complex struggle of evolution. I was once very unhappy, I only didn’t kill myself because I knew it would devastate my parents, but eventually I began to enjoy life, in large part because this beauty became more apparent the more I studied, it helped me know how to best improve myself and in particular, reading Ethica helped a great deal, perhaps the most optimistic inducing philosophical work I have ever read. You can make it too anon, I believe in you.

>>16200909
>redditors are voluntarily removing their shitty genes from the human gene pool

This is objectively a good thing. In general, I would argue that it’s a net-positive to the world any time a person with double-digit IQ dies without reproducing, and it’s a net-negative when most (but not all) people with a triple-digit IQ die without reproducing.

Overpopulation is a huge problem for planet earth, but it’s not going to be solved just by a few whites and Asians having less kids. My personal view is also that large amounts of childless people are toxic to society, due to their intrinsic ideology of individualism over family values.

>>16201241
I am yet to meet an antinatalist that didn’t also bring up the supposed high cost of raising children, ignoring of course the fact that Shaniqua and Tammy-Lynn manage to raise half a dozen kids on welfare and food stamps

>>16201273
>its an existence thats a fate worse than death in the grand scheme because of the lost hopes and dreams
The dead do not have hopes or dreams

>>16200909
>I'm seeing it becoming more popular especially on reddit.
Good. Reddit users don't deserve to reproduce.

Its a cultural phenomenon. Most people initially want to have kids

>>16201349
In my experience, it’s sometimes the opposite. I’ve encountered both men and women who were ambivalent, indifferent or opposed to kids for most of their lives, but upon falling in love their thoughts changed to:
>I wanna have his kids
Or
>I wanna BREED this bitch

>>16200909
The only solution to prevent suffering is to end the lives of everyone and everything, as well as preventing the possibility of life coming about at all. Antinatalism only prevents the suffering of those to exist, but the suffering of those who live is still present and active until their lives end. You cannot do one without the other.

>>16200909
kill all antinatalists

>>16201382
Y tho? They’re already committing voluntary self-genocide

Why should I prevent suffering?

>>16201326
Based I can imagine their reactions
>uhhh uhhh but I have so much college debt I’m suffering every second uhh uhh

>>16201382
Based

>>16200909
You'll notice most antinatalists are whites. Once again, the white race is causing problems for itself and others by introducing a toxic ideology into the world. This time, it seems whites are taking steps to solve the problem their race presents to the world. I applaud this, and I encourage all whites to embrace antinatalism.

>>16201385
Because I'm going to prevent yours if you don't prevent it yourself.

>>16201291
I used to lie in bed for hours rubbing scissors over my throat, for seemingly no reason.
Suffering/Depression is caused by wrong expectations about existence. We are constantly fed advertisements/instagram/vlogs about how great life COULD be, so we starts defining how existence should be that does not align with how existence IS. That misalignment and failed expectations causes suffering.
Once I started expecting what I got, I became happy.
>>16201344
Implying an incel like you will ever impregnate a woman who won't abort his child.
>>16201349
Women are evolutionarily designed to feel disgust at getting pregnant. It's a fitness test to test a man's persistence. I was rejected dozens of times and the bitch even threatened to abort my kid, for ex.
>>16201307
What's hilarious is that AN's seem to have only an issue with whites making kids.
>>16201373
There was actually a reddit threat where they discussed a "big red button" that would eradicate all life and how they would press it.
>>16201383
Unironically, I think those AN/efilist people are a threat and should be ********.

>>16201402
i don't think you can support your claim.

>>16201409
I live with my suffering, I can take it.

>>16201414
>There was actually a reddit threat where they discussed a "big red button" that would eradicate all life and how they would press it.
So, like "I smash it" or "I slowly press it, taking my time and fully coming to terms with what I'm doing"?

>>16200909
Voluntary redditors (i.e. redditors who have yet to escape the moral-trap that keeps them there but are aware something is off) are all disgusting hylics and should not reproduce. Because they are, not at all ironically, mentally and emotionally retarded, they are incapable of understanding that it is righteousness and contentment that are the most important factors in a persons life and that suffering is for the most part completely forgotten in the face of life contentment and happiness with how one has lived. Not only are AN redditors hylics and completely incapable of directing themselves to goals beyond pleasure/suffering-avoidance, they are also complete genetic washouts and demoralized losers, and therefore incapable of the even basic levels of self-motivation that would allow them to achieve at least a middling existence.
Arguments about consent in birth are pilpul and irrelevant. I guarantee you that none of them are "upset" that their parents gave birth to them without their consent. Their anger is almost always directed at some external source. Their frustration at a political issue, the suffering of others, hatred for children, failure at or in achieving sexual intercourse, extraordinary weakness or material morbidity, etc. Since they annihilate their souls through materialistic obsession, they are incapable of introspection. They literally cannot conceive that their circumstances could be improved or changed through their own effort. So they start to smash against the walls of their cage in anger that they even exist. AN arguments are almost always a proxy for this.

>>16201419
That was supposed to be a threat, Anon. Glad you took it that way.

>>16201431
see for yourself:

>>16201273
>No you aren't happy! You're suffering!
Who are you to tell someone they are suffering? Suffering is inherently subjective.

>>16200909
antinatalists will just get owned by high-fertility religious sects like haredi, salafi, laestadians, amish, etc. who will never be convinced by their arguments. so it doesn't matter for humanity. but i don't want them further destroying birthrates, so i think every anti-natalist should be jailed.

everyone itt just wants to strawman redditors, how about we engage with the actual core of the philosophy and stop knocking down those who aren't present?

>>16201452
My God, that's pathetic. I was kind of hoping that it was just bad phrasing on your part or poor interpretation on mine, but it's just literally that.
I'd press it btw

>>16201452
What caused this? Why are so many people soulless husks nowadays?

>>16200909
>presupposes utilitarianism, has no response to ethical egoism, for example
>assumes that life is more bad than good, though this cannot be proved
>ignores any possibility of a future utopia/heaven that would make all past suffering worth it
>denies choice
>totally insignificant, since most anti-natalists do not value non-existence enough to kill themselves and save decades of supposed suffering
yeah, I’m thinking it’s cringe

>>16201487
Unironically too much time on the internet.

>>16200909
If suffering can be quantified surely less sentient entities or beings that have an ability to suffer is a net good.

Your first point about consent is pretty irrelevant as it's a moral issue. As soon as you have a child you basically gamble with a future person's existence.

The second point you make about dying in the future really doesn't make much sense to the an position it's not death that's the issue or the inevitability of death it's the suffering along the way.

Your third point ignores the fact that you could live a life convincing others to stop suffering by convincing them to not have children. It also pretty much amounts to "why dont you just kill yourself"
We are biologically programmed to avoid death it's why a lot of people only kill themselves once anti depressants erase that fear in them.

I'm not an antinatalist but your arguments dont really seem to float. Focusing on how quantifiable suffering is or how inevitable beings that can suffer in this universe seem like more stable starting grounds.

>>16201216
They wouldn't be able to feel that lack of suffering; they needed to be born to experience the wish to not have been born.

>nobody really enjoys life. They just cope with it
Life is a trial. If you enjoy it, you're either happy and functional, about to fall, or deluded.

>>16201225
So people tend to be happy.

>>16201273
Or, alternatively, you can fix the problems in your life and attempt to make a change. Sometimes the life around you improves, but you're still stuck in a shitty rut due to your coping mechanisms, which spiral out of control. Things might not be so bad, but now you're addicted to drugs, alcohol, and gaming, which make a new world of problems. You're presenting this fatalistic world in which you MUST cope forever and this ALWAYS leads to dysfunction, which is utterly untrue, but growing in today's modern climate (ironic, given how we're supposed to be scientific and "happy" and "out of the dark ages of religion and toil" today).

>>16201402
White, college age atheists. Probably not vegans, either, even though "eating meat" and "killing animals" causes suffering. In fact, a whole lot of things in this world cause suffering, but they don't stop themselves from doing that because they're "sad boys who need to live the best lives they can after the traumatizing event of being born without their consent." Boo hoo. I think whites are like this because there are probably a lot of dysfunctional, unhappy, mentally ill white men out there today (workaholics, incels, forever alone). There are also a lot of asian anti-natalists, and you can take a guess as to why, but it shouldn't take long.

>>16201414
>I used to lie in bed for hours rubbing scissors over my throat...
And? I have frequent suicidal thoughts, too, but I don't act on them because I have something to live for.

>Suffering/Depression is caused by wrong expectations about existence
Reduce your expectations, then, and you won't be disappointed forever.

>We are constantly fed advertisements/instagram/vlogs about how great life COULD be, so ...
Live in the real world

>Women are evolutionarily designed to feel disgust at getting pregnant
Women are evolutionarily designed to be attached to their children. The only reason this is abated is because several (in particular, easy) women are wantons who down birth control pills and other such shit. The modern diet of fast food and StarBucks and such probably doesn't help with balancing their bodies and hormones, either

>What's hilarious is that AN's seem to have only an issue with whites making kids
The nose knows

>There was actually a reddit threat where they discussed a "big red button" that would eradicate all life and how they would press it.
Yes, I've browsed and seen such posts a gazillion times. Seems like they have insane power fantasies. It's like /pol/lacks saying "Day of the Rope soon," which, of course, never happens. "Red Button soon"

>>16201416
https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSfgS-HfwVUcj6pcYWvaZPkq5Tyk7qoWXQz8IY9LrNYXshqW-A/viewanalytics

Best I could find.

>>16201452
>push the button to prevent the next 10 quadrillion possible lives from going on in pain without consent
The funny thing is that in a debate between Vegana Gains and AN superhumandance (~8 cumulative hours of long of absolute shit), Richard brought up a good argument- if abiogenesis eventually brought consciousness into existence, who's to say that it won't just occur again? And this time, we're setting back the possible transhumanist utopia that may have been created had we allowed technology to progress. But no, we have to end it all now, because Dracci is a negative Utilitarian that can't respect other's consent (translation: he hates humans but wants to appear polite and reluctant)

>consent is only important when you know your consent has been violated
Thank you, existentialgoof. The next time I go to a party, I'll remember to bring date rape drugs before raping the woman. Don't worry, I won't leave any traces. In N out burger

Imagine wanting to destroy everything just because some people feel bad and jaded. If it's that bad, man, just lobotomize yourself, strap yourself into a pleasure machine. Induce a comatose state. It should be no problem because most of these types think consciousness is a mistake because it leads to a greater capacity for suffering. Very well, end it. If you can't handle the heat, get out of the kitchen

>I'd prefer a button that makes all existing life infertile
>Bill gates wants to know your location
In all likelihood, there would still be asexual reproduction, and we'd be back to square one. Nothing solved. I wonder what the anti-natalist take on asexual reproduction is. Is it unethical? If someone feels no pain at all, can we bring them into existence?

And they talk about the "generations of terror and existential dread," but try to remove everything that would mitigate life's horrors. No religion, no nationalism, no racialism, no family, no struggle, no philanthropy. Are these people adopting children? Donating? Helping others? Let me consult my magic 8-ball. "Outlook not so good."

>>16201460
Exactly. The fertility sects will have a little competition, as the cult of modernity disgorges more jaded, dysfunctional consumers, our future protestors, soulless consumers, and more™. But it's just a conspiracy theory, the talking heads showed me a graph that said everyone is happier, more educated, and well accommodated than ever! If the worst comes to be, they can just give us happy pills.

>>16201551
Heh, Immendham.

>If suffering can be quantified surely less sentient entities or beings that have an ability to suffer is a net good.
You could reduce the amount of suffering, curtail sentience, render sentient beings unable to feel suffering, or simply disagree with your premise that "it is good."

>>16201551
> As soon as you have a child you basically gamble with a future person's existence.
How horrible, I am feeding, housing, educating, and providing for a child. If my caretaking negatively influences their future existence, that is negative; then again, merely by existing we gamble with other people's existences. You can cause immense suffering through the smallest actions, butterfly effect style. Even killing yourself can lead to something greatly negative further down the line. This is the great flaw of Utilitarianism- what end goal? The one we arbitrarily pick so that we can actually have the ability to do something.

>Your third point ignores the fact that you could live a life convincing others to stop suffering by convincing them to not have children
And you might not succeed whatsoever, rendering your existence a failure and an enormity. You caused suffering, you failed to cause pleasure, but no one will hold you accountable. Who cares? Why should I not cause suffering? Let's assume reproduction causes a child to suffer down the road, and I, being the father, am to blame for that- who will stop me? The law recognizes man's right to bear children. Are you going to appeal to some nebulous karmic system? "It's just inhumane, man. Let me appeal to your ego by calling myself more humane than you, even though I hate people."


>"why dont you just kill yourself"
He was probably looking for a justification, not a biological reason- "it's too hard." Very well, but it's also hard for me to not reproduce. However, that causes suffering, you claim, so I must abstain from reproduction, however hard it may be. We are biologically programmed to reproduce, and we live to reproduce; that's the point of living, evolution, and other coldly factual, logical, reasonable, rational, logical, empirical, and old, liver-spotted scientist ass-kissing beliefs.

> it's why a lot of people only kill themselves once anti depressants erase that fear in them
Take anti-depressants. A lot of people get vasectomies to prevent impregnating their girlfriends.

>Focusing on how quantifiable suffering is or how inevitable beings that can suffer in this universe seem like more stable starting grounds.
Why inevitable beings? Why not potential beings. Every fertile living human, as long as there is a companion of the opposite sex, has a host of potential babies swarming about them in atheistic pre-existence magic land.

>>16201745
>I am feeding, housing, educating, and providing for a child.

>>16201689
>we're setting back the possible transhumanist utopia
HAHA nice one you almost got me.

>>16201474
make an argument, then.
>>16201480
If you'd press it, then you're a threat and should literally be ********, no offense.
>>16201487
>>16201510
they were brainwashed into utopian thinking. advertising/instagram/etc.
>>16201496
LOL, they're anti-choice, and anti-life.

>>16201745
Pleasure is just as bad as suffering. The point is to end all experience.

>>16201496
always unrefuted and ignored. Don’t have kids if you don’t want them. That’s all it boils down to

>>16201551
We are literally biologically programmed to commit suicide. Depression is an emotion that we evolved to feel. The survival of the genes increases if the individual prioritizes the group over itself.
I have never seen an antinatalist convince a natalist to become an antinatalist.
If happiness can be quantified, surely more sentient entities that have an ability to enjoy is a net good.
Just because a "gamble" carries risk does not necessarily mean it's a bad gamble.
The CPR example includes the fact that saving the unresponsive drowned victim will cause that victim to experience more suffering in the future.

If you want to play devil's advocate, then at least do it well.

>>16201745
You're not a slave to evolution. Humanity has found itself in a position to be able to analyse itself. Not reproducing is relatively simple compared to ending your own life. That child you provide for assuming they are not born with one of the numerous genetic defects or congenital conditions (another roll of the dice) just to live a modern day existence has inumeral costs. All the dead end jobs people have to work. The countless animals that suffer in extreme agony just to feed your offspring. Why should you care? Why shouldn't you care? Another dead end. And yes you are to blame for the suffering of a life you created take some responsibility.

>>16201831
What you have seen or not seen is irrelevant it proves nothing. The gamble always ends up adding to suffering that wouldn't of existed otherwise the game is rigged.

>>16201904
it’s strange that you only consider suffering and not pleasure/happiness/etc. AN’s usually carry around some sort of double standard like this

>>16201911
Its pretty simple most things people derive enjoyment from rely on the suffering of others to even be viable.

>>16201957
the math works out because the bottom of the life kingdom is made of things that don’t suffer, so there’s a net gain in happiness

>>16201873
Correction. We're to blame for all the happiness, value, philosophy, true beliefs, science, technology, art, music, etc. The next generation of artists/philosophers/scientists will be created by people like me.
And keep in mind, that self-sterilization is an evolutionary trait. You're a beta/omega wolf who doesn't even think of reproducing because you're so low on the social hierarchy.
>>16201904
The gamble adds happiness. Without the gamble, there would be no happiness.
>>16201957
Literally the opposite. Most people's suffering results from seeing other people happy.

>>16201968
I'm sure all the alpha Male wolf dog future scientist creators are browsing the lit board on 4 chan. Get a grip your kid will get divorced die of cancer get hit by a car be a drunk driver. Bbbbut I could make the next einstein how many people had to die in a war or starve to death for a "great man" to exist?

>>16202024
It doesn't matter what the cost is.
My children are the next generation of thinkers and leaders. People like you are doomed to nonexistence.

>Anyone here an AN? I'm seeing it becoming more popular especially on reddit.

Antinatalism is Reddit

>>16201745
lol imagine being this brainlets child

I can only see antinatalism making sense if the child would inherit epilepsy or some shit like that

>>16201968
>Literally the opposite. Most people's suffering results from seeing other people happy.
this is merely a correlative reversal, but you're actually just restating what he said. their happiness is causing suffering, as you just admitted

>>16202473
That's incoherent.
I would rather exist and have epilepsy, than not exist.
>>16202479
If happiness causes suffering (or vice versa), then suffering has meaning.
If suffering is meaningless, then who cares?

antinatalism combined with philosophical pessimism is a irrefutable argument.
on it's own as a philosophy by david benatar it's not that strong of an argument

>>16202504
>philosophical pessimism
>I'm going to die tomorrow, so I shouldn't try to not die today.
stop trolling

>>16202489
why does suffering gain meaning from being caused? why does happiness have meaning? what do you mean by meaning?

>>16202528
stop this shitty projection and read a book subhuman

>>16202530
look it up
meaning means purpose
>>16202546
That's not very pessimistic of you, hypocrite.

>>16202558
>look it up
>meaning means purpose
?????
um

Justs have kids responsibly lol

I don't see why it's that hard

>>16201745
>Why should I not cause suffering?
Can I shoot you then?

>>16201273
The problem is that you treat happiness and suffering as two poles with no middle. If by happiness we mean ecstatic joy, then of course it’s rare. But that default resting place of emotion can often be one of contentment. What is characteristic of depression is that this default level of emotion is lowered (literally “depressed”). It would be a mistake to take this lowered state as the natural or the necessary or the true.

>>16202628
That's not what antinatalism is

the question to ask is not "should I have kids" but rather, "should my kids have me as a parent"

and reading this thread the answer is a resounding "no". None of you would make good parents. All of your children will suffer greatly under your watch.

The antinatalist's argument that conceiving a child is a gamble on their happiness is retarded because, at the end of the day, everything is a gamble.
>Why have a kid when the possibility of suffering exists
>Why go for a swim when the possibility of drowning exists
>Why climb a mountain when the possibility of falling exists
>Why ride a bike when the possibility of being run over and becoming disabled exists
The existence of suffering does not preclude the existence of happiness. That is your perspective (a flawed, unprovable one too).

>>16200909
>Antinatalism
the most cuck kike shit i have ever heard. Daily reminder that these ideas are created by Jews to demoralize whites, because whites are the only ones who are actually philosophically inclined enough to entertain such garbage. You think Jamal and Tyrone will sit through a fucking debate on this before deciding on ejaculating into a woman? kek

I am not an antinatalist, but I won't have kids. Kids are annoying and require much effort. I would rather put all that effort into myself and die an ubermensch, than put effort into some little brat who will drive me insane and end up becoming a crack addict anyways. Naturally, that's all cope for the fact I simply feel like I could not feel any emotional closeness to that kid.

>>16202846
These people are literally Nietzsches Last Man. They should all be rounded up, why don’t they just kys if life’s so bad? It takes more energy to live than to die and every day you live increases the chance of you suffering, so why don’t they just end it immediately to alleviate from potential suffering?

>>16202847
>because whites are the only ones who are actually philosophically inclined enough to entertain such garbage. You think Jamal and Tyrone will sit through a fucking debate on this before deciding on ejaculating into a woman? kek
And? Do you think I care whether niggers suffer? I only care about preventing suffering for white people.

>>16202819
antinatalists are projecting their inability to raise a child onto everyone.
for some reason they imagine all children suffering because that's what they think will happen to their kids.
>>16202835
My kids are doing well.
>>16202846
Exactly.
>>16202858
If your ubermench state is finite, then it's meaningless.
I seek perpetuation. Ideally, I'd be immortal, but the chance of that is low (barring stuff like quantum immortality), so I can only find other areas to be perpetual in, like my dynasty.
>>16202880
based and natalist pilled

>>16202880
>Nietzsche
Died childless
So technically he was an antinatalist

>>16203089
>dying childless makes you an antinatalist
not necessarily. See the image here:>>16201801

>>16200909
I am childfree, but I am not an antinatalist. There is really no good argument for antinatalism.

>>16203099
>not necessarily.
Of course it does. Antinatalism deals with only one question which is of the procreation. And they argue against procreation.

>>16200909

To have committed every crime but that of being a father.

I would say I am an anti-natalist, in the sense that I'm personally against producing offspring. Same with adopting as well. The reasons, if any ask, are somewhat varied. But it boils down ultimately to a general lack of desire and/or will. There are a few other, secondary reasons, but the primary is just that.

To the case of being against others having children, and that I promote the abstention of procreation: I'm not. If you want a kid or a half-dozen, do so as you please. I won't mind nor really care. Their life, their choice as I say.

>>16203136
That's called being childfree. Antinatalism attaches a negative value to birth. Childfree is more about individual preference rather than trying to make a philosophical statement.

>>16203150
And I do attach a somewhat negative view/value to birth. Out of the secondary reasons for it, that is the highest of them. However; it connects, overall, to the more pessimistic side of my beliefs in general. And isn't necessarily of it's own.

>>16200909
>a world without ANs is a better world
Then why do Natalists keep producing them? Curious.

>>16200909
Antinatalism is just a cope by depressed people who can't imagine life being anything else than suffering and then projecting. Pretty sad.

>>16203100
>>16203150
Oh for fuck sake nobody is forcing anyone to not have kids. This position is also a CHOICE.
Even David Benatar himself said that he wrote this book as an academic thesis and doesn't expect that this philosophical position will ever get popular.

>>16202846
The problem here is that you’re making someone else swim, climb a mountain, etc.

>>16203198
You're wrong. See:>>16201452
>>16203208
That's incoherent. It's impossible to force something that doesn't exist.

Oh and btw, the Benatar Asymmetry can just be flipped:
Creating suffering = bad, creating joy = good, not creating suffering = not bad, not creating joy = bad.

>>16203239
>It's impossible to force something that doesn't exist.
Just cum inside the pussy of your wife and after nine months she will shit out a leech. How hard it is?

>>16203249
My sperm exist, her ovary exist. What's your point? I don't need a sperm's/ovary's permission.

>>16203239
>It's impossible to force something that doesn't exist.
Yet that person will be able to wish it hadn’t happened. I don’t see the difference in this example (“forcing” a living person to do something vs. an unborn one) that makes your argument valid.

>>16203314
Again, I don't need a sperm's/ovary's permission, you idiot.

My child wishing I didn't create it is irrelevant and valueless. I'd rather risk my child wishing to not be born, than to not bring a child into existence who would thank me once he grew up. It's called cost-benefit analysis.

If I give you a lawn mower as a gift, but then you cut your toe while mowing, you can wish I never gave you the lawnmower, but that wish has no moral basis. There's always risk, but avoiding risk is not necessarily correct.

Moreover, if my child wishes to not exist, then there's always a corrective option. There's no corrective option if a child is never made though.

>>16203358
>I'd rather risk my child wishing to not be born, than to not bring a child into existence who would thank me once he grew up.

I would love to be able to understand why people think like this. I’m convinced I could personally never forgive myself if I ever had a child wishing it didn’t exist.

Childfree is self-centered hedonism, AN is self-centered pessimism
>>16203474
Like this guy, he's just trying to mental gymnastics his craven nature into a virtue. Pathetic.

>>16202846
the difference is one pertains to an already existent human, and the other pertains to starting a human life that need not be. there is no downside for the potential child to not be born (he is not deprived of the good in life, as he doesn't exist yet). Once already born, raised, encultured within a society etc, your only options are to gamble/risk suffering. you are condemned to choose and act.

according to antinatalists this is a bad thing, and could be avoided entirely if the parent-to-be realizes that "gambling" when the losses fall on someone else, and winning involves a life of struggle, work, aging and death - that this is not a good moral choice to make.

>>16203239
>not creating joy = bad.

for whom?

>>16203532
>mental gymnastics
Where? I didn’t say anything other than “I don’t understand your line of thinking and would like to.”

>>16203474
>I would love to be able to understand why people think like this.

I mean, it's obvious. He's a low-iq, low empathy NPC who is little more than a slave to his impulses. I mean he spells out very clearly:

>"I'd rather risk my child wishing to not be born, than to not bring a child into existence who would thank me once he grew up."

It's about his risk, and his gamble. I don't think people like this can literally comprehend or conceptualize ethics outside of 'benefits/doesn't benefit me'. At no point in his cost/benefit analysis does the suffering of his child enter into the picture. It's less than relevant - it's not even conceived.

There's no use arguing or convincing someone like this. And either way it's really not a huge deal that he has procreated - his child will just grow up to be another brain-dead moron like himself.

>>16203474
>I would love to be able to understand why people think [about looking at benefits and not just risk]. I’m convinced I could personally never forgive myself if I ever had a child wishing it didn’t exist.

You're not only blind to how people like behave, but you're also emotionally week.

Here's a fact though: if you had a child that didn't want to exist, then you can always realize that outcome. But if you never have a child that would want to exist if it did, then you will never be able to realize that outcome. One of these is a temporary possible moral failure, while the other is a permanent one.

>>16203543
that wasn't a claim that not creating joy is bad, it was just showing how you can just flip Benatard's Asymmetry.

>>16203537
>ignorance is bliss
there is no upside for the potential child to not be born

>>16203566
You're a mong. It's not just my benefit, but the child's. The child can either suffer, or enjoy. There's a risk of the child suffering, and that's taken into account when choosing to create the child.
For ex: you chose to read this thread and participate even though you KNOW that you could suffer here. But you did it anyway because the cost benefit analysis. So you're a hypocrite. You choose to live even though you WILL cause yourself and others suffering. You are a hypocrite!

And my children are very smart.

>>16203583
there's not point debating an idiot

>>16203583
>if you had a child that didn't want to exist, then you can always realize that outcome.

What would you do in this scenario? Kill them? Tell them to kill themselves?

>permanent moral failure
Regarding a non-existent person?

>>16203583
>lmao dude if your child wishes he was never born you can just, like kill it

>>16203643
A person ceases to exist after they're murdered. So do you think murder is not a moral failure?

Just because the victim isn't aware does not make it okay.

>>16203710
Kill it before its born.

>>16203735
>Kill it before its born.

>>16203761
what the fuck happened to jontron

>>16201225
You have disproved nothing he said.

>>16201402
Whatever problems Europe has loosed upon the world, it is a thousand times more beautiful even now than whatever mongrelized species shat you out.

>it's another thread where retards say "if life sucks why don't you kill yourself lmao"
>when death being inevitable is the strongest argument for antinatalism
Is /lit/ this stupid?

>>16203810
>Is /lit/ this stupid?
Yes. Some guys are literally just saying the same thing in every thread, over and over, and getting refuted every time. They come back the next day and post the same refuted natalist argument word for word.

>>16203583
>There's a risk of the child suffering, and that's taken into account when choosing to create the child.

Yes, by you, not by the child, which was his point.

>>16203876
And you posted your shitpost by you.
What's your point?
I swear to God these fucking ANs are mentally ill in more ways than one.

>>16200909
>I'm a Natalist
What is natalist praxis? How have you used your theorizing to inform your behavior?

>>16203583
>The child can either suffer, or enjoy. There's a risk of the child suffering, and that's taken into account when choosing to create the child.

What does "taken into account" even mean? I can only assume it means something like "most likely my child wont regret being born so I'm going have one. I'm willing to take that gamble because I think the odds are in my favour. If the child suffers and regrets his birth then he can just kill himself. It's a risk I'm willing to take."

Close enough?

To spell it out, if you actually took the risk of your child suffering into account, you wouldn't have one. All suffering can be avoided by not being conceived. There is no downside for the child-to-be either, as nothing exists to feel the lack of pleasure.

But for natalists, nothing trumps, "I want a child. I want to procreate. I'm willing to risk that my child suffers greatly to achieve this goal. It's not a big deal. My child can commit suicide if he hates life so much.

>>16203842
>refuted
>completely incompatible ideological frameworks
>refuted
Do you stick your head out the window to refute the wailing of the wind each night? Shut the fuck up, you metasuicidal brain-botch.

>>16203913
lol you're actually a moron who can't follow an argument

>>16203913

That your wager is irrelevant at beast and evil at worst. You're doing your position a big disservice.

>>16204054
You're a retard. There is no upside for the child if it's not created.

>>16203941
Your argument is that the child didn't choose to be born. That's not an argument.

>>16204085

What makes you think so?

>>16204124
What makes you think there is an upside?

>>16204131

I didn't say that there is or that there isn't one.

>>16200909
vagina is a border through which legal but still stupid migrants appear.

>>16203731
But there are infinite unborn people. Wouldn’t it be a moral failure to do anything other than trying to bring as many of them into the world as possible? And even then, you can’t do anything morally acceptable in this scenario because there will always be people left you didn’t give birth to/help procreate.

>>16204161
There are no unborn persons. Non-existent things don't exist because existence is not a property that can be attached to things.

>>16204219
Then why are people discussing the moral implications of *not* giving birth to anyone in this thread? Wouldn’t this become completely irrelevant?

>>16204161
It is my imperative to create more humans.
>>16204241
>>16204219
It's irrelevant to discuss how humans are harmed by being created since they didn't exist prior to being created.

Kek, Antinatalism threads are the most popular and hot threads on /lit/

>>16204275
>It is my imperative to create more humans.

That’s fine, but it doesn’t say anything about the morality of your choice. No one told you to create them, nor is anyone forcing you to. People can resist that urge, many never have it in the first place.

>>16204275
humans or workers? pigs or independent responsible people?

>>16201765
That's what an ideal father would do.

>>16201798
We are talking about what can happen after a great many years. There is always the possibility of a solution to suffering.

>>16201810
That's just an arbitrary ascription. "Bad" "Good." Why end experience? Because everything is bad? Why is everything bad?

>>16201831
No surprise- we are biologically programmed to do everything we do, normal or abnormal.

>depression is an emotion we evolved to feel
No, it's a dysfunction of something that otherwise would have functioned normally. It's just altered brain function, and it needs fixing.

>>16201873
Patently incorrect. We have evolved to do everything we do. To kill ourselves, to live. To reproduce, to not reproduce.

>Humanity has found itself in a position to be able to analyse itself
I see this trend. You don't want "business as usual" to continue. I want humans to re-evaluate everything they are doing, and recognize their actions' justifications.

>Not reproducing is relatively simple compared to ending your own life
Yes, but one chooses not to reproduce because his offspring will suffer. The offspring is the entity he affects by reproducing. When one lives, the immediate world becomes his offspring; every action he does affects others, and often causes suffering. The offspring can also feel a myriad of pleasures, but you don't care about those, so we'll pay attention only to the negative.

Utilitarianism is a poor position, in my opinion, because you do not have any way to know the consequence of your actions. Your child may be the greatest philanthropist, and will experience little to no suffering, or he may become (to invoke the name of the modern Satan) the next Hitler. I don't think it is valid to ALWAYS abstain from a situation where a risk is involved. That's probably caused by a physiological issue between the two of us. Some people are little ninnies, and others take risks. Besides, you're gambling by not reproducing. Either way, you gamble with other people's happiness.

>assuming they are not born with one of the numerous genetic defects or congenital conditions
That can happen to you as you live, as well. You may lose a limb, or a late-acting genetic disease may flare up. And yet, this doesn't deter you from living, with the possibility of being a burden not only to yourself (as if you have the right to cause your body to suffer, which Utilitarianism doesn't necessarily endow you with) but also to others.

> just to live a modern day existence has innumeral costs
And that's a good thing

>All the dead end jobs people have to work
Boo hoo. Bad things happen to people who don't deserve it. Nobody asked them to reproduce, when they knew they were stuck in a dead end job. But if they can make it work, why are you making an example of them?

>The countless animals that suffer in extreme agony just...
I don't believe animals have a moral status. Debate me on this, vegan. In short, we can kill them, pain be damned

>>16200909
When I was an edgy 21-24 year old, I was in the anti-natalism gang. I read David Benatar and was convinced. Then after living life a bit longer without killing myself I concluded that life really isn't so terrible that it's better to have never been born. I don think people should question reproduction and be prepared to have a depressed nihilist kid (for a bit of their life at least).

>>16201873
>Why should you care? Why shouldn't you care? >Another dead end
My life could become a dead end. Yours could, too

> And yes you are to blame for the suffering of a life you created take some responsibility.
Take some responsibility? Isn't my father to blame for everything I do? If he hadn't had me, I wouldn't have reproduced. Does everyone along the blood line share equal blame, or is only the creator (unless that is the Big Bang) to blame?
Because my child will eventually die, is having a child equivalent to killing a child?

>>16201904
Every action is a gamble that increases suffering. The problem is, it might also increase pleasure, which you wave off as "perpetuating the conspiracy against the human race." The way I see it, you're perpetuating a conspiracy against the human race, hampering our progress to a world with less or without suffering, which is entirely possible.

>>16202024
>I'm sure all the alpha Male wolf dog future scientist creators are browsing the lit board on 4 chan
You'd be surprised

>Get a grip your kid will get divorced die of cancer get hit by a car be a drunk driver
Hahahaa. None of that happened to me, my father, his father, and so many other generations. If you take care of your body, health, and safety, those things become just as likely as making the next Einstein, Einstein.

>how many people had to die in a war or starve to death for a "great man" to exist?
Yes, I remember when we had to sacrifice a hundred men for Einstein to be created.

>>16202184
Seconded. We move on, with or without these pessimistic doomsayers. Suffering be damned, the ends justify the means to these Utilitarian fucks anyway. If we create an eternal utopia on earth without suffering, all this pain will have been a dream. Of course, I'm just putting that forth as a possibility, I don't believe in transhumanism. I believe in Heaven.

>>16202470
I don't have children. I don't need to, I'm merely arguing it's not evil to. Besides, all of you anti-natalists sound the same; when you can't guilt the interlocutor, you try to attack their children, their parents, anything's fair game. What happened to persuading the breeder to stop breeding? Impeccable tactics

>>16202504
It's just Utilitarianism. That's it. I have yet to see a non-negative-Utilitarian (it causes pain!) argument for antinatalism and pessimism.

>>16201957
Then YOU should stop deriving enjoyment from anything. I agree; the fact that I am enjoying sleep right now means that there must be some insomniac out there getting no sleep. You are typing on a computer; someone else has no computer. I don't see this as a bad thing, so I don't see your point.

>>16202546
Oh, you're the "read a book subhuman" guy. I've already responded to you months ago; if YOU'VE read the books, present us with the arguments in the book. That's the point of arguing, otherwise we'd just be exchanging book titles.

>>16202635
You could, but at the risk of shooting you first. You don't believe in causing pain, so I don't think it would be smart to do that, unless you believe I need to die because I would have otherwise created several children. In that case, ANs believe in killing natalists, and should be shunned (I don't say imprisoned because they won't actually do anything).

Besides, we've made laws to prevent that, but not to prevent eating meat or reproduction. Not all sufferings are made equal, it seems.

>>16203089
You can be childless without thinking it is evil to reproduce. It would just be a preference, based on non-moralistic reasons.

>>16203117
Anti-natalists is not only about reproduction. There are certain beliefs that undergird anti-natalism, such as "existence is worse than non-existence," or "suffering must always be avoided."

>>16203123
Every crime except one? Pic related

>>16203150
You guys are like vegans. "You're not actually vegan if you're not 100% against others eating meat, you're plant-based." Sure, who cares about a label? If you're an atheist, no one will give you brownie points for not reproducing. We all die, fathers or not, and we all go to nothing.

>>16203169
We don't produce them, life produces them. Anti-natalists are like homosexuals, they aren't born. They are made, and they may merely be predisposed to anti-natalism from birth.

>a world without anti-natalists is a better world
Most people produced by "natalists" are not even anti-natalists.

>>16203208
How? Who am I making, exactly? My unborn child, or my born child?

>>16203249
The unborn do not exist. One can only exist when they are conceived, not before.

>she will shit out a leech
This ties in with >>16203169
Why do natalists keep shitting out anti-natalist leeches? Must be something in the water.


>>16203314
Unless he/she is happy that he has been brought into existence. How is the action is evil because the person can wish it didn't happen? The person's wishes are transitory, and ever changing. When the AN phase passes, I, the father, will suddenly stop being evil. There must be a different standard for measuring the goodness or evilness of an act, and not how it is received by the recipient.

>>16203474
Can you forgive yourself for not wanting to exist? Why does it feel like the only difference between us in one of personality and mindset, and not merely better argumentation? You don't want to risk, we want to risk. Seize the day versus seize up

>>16203537

>and winning involves a life of struggle, work, aging and death
I don't see any of that as bad. A good parent equips his child with the tools and thoughts needed to deal with these things, as generations before us have done. We are the product of millennia of people struggling, working, aging, and dying. We've gotten weak, and we have too much time and affluence

>>16203537
>there is no downside for the potential child to not be born (he is not deprived of the good in life, as he doesn't exist yet)
And then there is no benefit for the child to not be born, either. So what?

>>16203543
>violating the consent of an unborn being is bad
>bringing a nonexistent entity into existence is bad
All of these "unborn entity" arguments are stupid, exactly.

>>16203566
>does the suffering of his child enter into the picture. It's less than relevant - it's not even conceived.

It's probably very important. It's just that he does not adopt the extreme position you take; "the child will experience any amount of suffering, therefore he should not be brought into existence." His threshold for how much suffering is too much for a child is higher (for example, he might think it is permissible for an affluent, middle-class family without the risk of genetic defects to reproduce; a poor family in a wartorn, third-world country might not be clear to reproduce in his belief).

>I don't think people like this can literally comprehend or conceptualize ethics outside of 'benefits/doesn't benefit me'
Great, you're not like the other sheep. That's what everyone says

>>16203643
I would continue to love them, call them my child, and try to convince them as to the contrary. I will always be waiting for them, even if they revile and abandon me, because that's what a responsible father ought to do. In short, wait for the phase to pass. They may need counseling, or psychiatric help (as a last resort). If he doesn't opt for help, so be it. Some people need to suffer like dogs to realize the foolishness of their beliefs.

>>16203731
Why is murder bad, if it does not cause pain?

>>16203776
He visited r/antinatalism

>>16203810
Heh why is death even bad, according to anti-natalism? It is a cessation of suffering, a release. It is not necessary to view it as an evil, or painful thing, either (particularly not if you believe in an afterlife, even if there is a Hell).

>>16203876
There is no child to take anything into account. Remember, the child not existing is not a bad thing for the child because it does not exist, so it can not be deprived of pain.

>>16203917
Probably "reproduction is not evil in all cases." A more accurate term would be non-antinatalist

>>16203934
> If the child suffers and regrets his birth then he can just kill himself. It's a risk I'm willing to take
If the child regrets his or her birth, too fucking bad. I did my part, I'm always there if he or she needs me. It's a risk I'm willing to take

>To spell it out, if you actually took the risk of your child suffering into account, you wouldn't have one.
Wrong. If you viewed the risk of ALL of your child's suffering as something to ALWAYS be prevented, you wouldn't have a child.

>All suffering can be avoided by not being conceived
He likely doesn't hold to the belief that all suffering needs to be avoided.

>>16204565
Independent, responsible people. Humans. A human can be a worker, and an independent, responsible person can be a pig. Usually, they get over it, but examples like you make me doubt the possibility of such a thing occurring

>>16200909
Ok, I'm gonna rape your kids. After all consent is a spook, right?

I don't understand antinatalism
If life is so terrible that it's a net negative to live why not just kill yourself? All your supposed suffering would end

>>16205390
>I'm gonna post it again

>>16205411
?

>>16205413
>Oh God I'm fucking POOOOOOSTIIIING the same retarded nonargument that has been disproven seventy gigatrillion times in every single previous Antinatalism thread since the foundation of the board xDDDDD

>>16204971
>The way I see it, you're perpetuating a conspiracy against the human race, hampering our progress to a world with less or without suffering, which is entirely possible.

Suffering is inherent to life, as is pleasure. There can never be a "without" of either unless you remove all life. Also, I'm unsure if you think perpetual population growth inherently means progress -- IF you agree with perpetual population growth, that is.

>>16205434
it has never been refuted, so why wouldn't he keep posting it?

>>16205453
antinatalism isn't about
>"gonna heckin kill myself because life sucks lmao"
It's about:
>"Existing is worse than not existing so it is immoral to have children"

Now it's been refuted seventy-gorillion and one times.

>>16205434
Disprove it then faggot
If you're an antinatalist and haven't killed yourself you're either
1) a retard who is causing himself pain for no reason
2) a hypocrite who doesn't actually believe in it and is just trying to be edgy

>>16205464
see >>16205462

>>16205475
That doesn't disprove anything retard
If existing is worse than not existing why do you choose to keep existing?

>>16205462
soooo why don't you go not exist then, if it's so great? do you need any help?

>>16205462
>Existing is worse than not existing so it is immoral to have children
it follows that suicide is the best choice since you would be non-existent. Surely a few seconds of fear of death is worth saving decades of suffering? It is easy to have a painless death: just go to a tall roof, drink poison, jump off, and shoot yourself in the head with a shotgun on the way down. If you can’t do this, then you can’t blame people for having kids, because you’re both just following your biological desires.

Do you give permission for me to kill you at a random time? Perhaps when you’re sleeping? Will you give me your address?

>>16205482
Fundamentally I didn't choose to exist, I just found myself to be existing when I woke up today. Ending my existence would require conscious effort, and I'm more inclined towards contemplation than towards action.

>>16205487
No

>>16205493
I would have to be very retarded in order to accept this argument. Because, there are billions of human beings other than myself. And several more were born as I was typing this out. Hence, suicide would not lead to less number of people on earth. In fact if I wanted less humans to be alive, ending my life in this instant would probably be, logically speaking, one of the worst possible courses of action in the universe. You'd have to have a literal fucking monkey brain to make the non-argument that
>Existing is bad
>So you should kill youself :D

>>16205493
>Do you give permission for me to kill you at a random time? Perhaps when you’re sleeping? Will you give me your address?

>>16205509
So you're a hypocrite then?
>>16205493
This Surely a few seconds figuring out if humans can fly or not is better than decades of painful existence

>>16205509
I don’t think you really value non-existence that much. If it were guaranteed that I could make $100 by simply going through the process of killing myself (imagine that I could somehow be brought back to life or to the point just before I killer myself), then I would immediately kill myself. I would even do it for $50. Are you telling me that non-existence isn’t even worth $50 to you?

>>16205509
>In fact if I wanted less humans to be alive, ending my life in this instant would probably be, logically speaking, one of the worst possible courses of action in the universe.
you can’t do shit. Your arguments are shit, you won’t convince anyone unless they’re miserable like you. There will always be organisms that want to thrive and survive. Your goals are meaningless unless you can effectively eliminate all life in the universe. Life won’t end. Why don’t you just try to focus on making life better instead of ending it for everyone?

>>16205537
Are you baiting? I obv. could not enjoy money, or any material thing, after I eended my earthly existence.

>If children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?

>>16205442
Suffering is not inherent to life. It is an emergent property of consciousness. There exist many kinds of living beings or entities that cannot suffer, such as the cell of a spleen.

>>16205553
No my goals aren't meaningless unless I can eliminate all life in the universe. I am simply saying that
it
is
better
to
not
exist than to exist. I'm gonna have to repeat it until you understand. Read it, pause for 10 seconds.... Count slowly, and activate your brain.

>>16205557
then why do you say non-existence is better than existence? I think having $50 extra dollars is better, so I would kill myself if it means I would get $50. So why won’t you kill yourself if it leads to a better outcome? Supposing you could “kill yourself” to earn money, what minimum price would you go for?

Remember, this is a hypothetical. The aliens can time travel back to before you killed yourself and give you the money. Stop ignoring the issue here

>>16205588
Why so fucking obsessed with KYS? We all are gonna die anyway, give it 50 years or so. Why the only thing on your mind is KYS KYS KYS? Wanna speed up the process so badly? My philosophy wins automatically anyway, we all are gonna die, I'm ok with my fate because I know non-existence is a more preferable state. I still do not wanna die a bloody and terribly traumatic death.

>>16205581
and I’m trying to figure out how much better non-existence is. It’s obviously not that great since you haven’t killed yourself yet. The people who have committed suicide obviously thought non-existence was better than existence, yet you’re still alive. It doesn’t seem that significant to you. So how would you quantify the value of non-existence over existence? See >>16205588

>>16205246
>It's a risk I'm willing to take

How many times do people have to explicitly say that the risk YOU are willing to take is irrelevant to the argument? Are you esl or just morally AND intellectually bestial?

>>16205509
You didn't choose to exist but you are choosing to not end your existence while according to your opinion it is better not to exist than to exist
Why are you hurting yourself anon?

>>16205655
Just fuck off at this point.

>>16205246
It’s so easy to say something like

>If he doesn't opt for help, so be it. Some people need to suffer like dogs to realize the foolishness of their beliefs.

when you have never felt like that yourself. This is the kind of suffering that sparks AN ideas. In many cases, it’s not simple enough to call it a “phase”, we’re not talking about edgy teenagers here. I would never be able to tell myself my child “needs to suffer”.

>>16205662
You still can't answer me because your idea is retarded and hypocritical unless you kill yourself

>>16205655
I wonder if you are really this stupid, or only pretending to be stupid to pull my leg.

Is this all just rationalizing being r/childfree? Like wtf

>>16205671
You are wrong and I've said why. AN isn't about k. yourself.. Now fuck off

>>16205680
>Is this all just rationalizing being r/childfree?
No

>>16205673
>>16205681
Still no answer to my question
If it is better to not exist why would you willfully keep existing?

>>16205655
This argument doesn’t make sense, no matter how many times you repeat it. ANs care about the potential suffering of others as well. Think about how many people would suffer if you killed yourself right now.

>>16205655

The argument is mostly about opposing birth, opposing life after the fact, one's own or in general, is tangential at best.

>>16205691
Please go kill yourself. Please. So I wont again have to hear your retarded babbling about AN:s needing to kill themselves to fit your made-up criterion.

>>16205692
>>16205699
>>16205703
>living is a net negative
>but I want to continue to live
Do you realise how retarded this sounds

>>16205588
ANTINATALISTS:

HOW MUCH DO YOU VALUE NON-EXISTENCE? FOR HOW MUCH MONEY WOULD YOU KILL YOURSELF?

>>16205712
that's very life affirming of you say that people should kill themselves

>>16205712
Fuck off and KYS.

>>16205714
I thought you were trolling. And I already answered. For no money. Because you can't enjoy the money after you stopped living on earth.

>>16205723
If people believe that life is suffering who am I to say they shouldn't ease their suffering

>>16205712
You replied to my explanation to your argument with the exact same argument again. I’m afraid I took the bait for way too long.

>>16205723
it’s better that we live with people who actually care about life and about making a better life for others rather than supporting the extinction of all life. These people are obviously miserable and genetic dead-ends. They should definitely be removed, but the happy people should stay alive.

>>16205726
it’s a hypothetical in which it’s possible to live with the money after you kill your self. You keep ignoring this because you’re scared. I’m simply asking you what sort of outcome would justify suicide, and you won’t answer.

>>16205729
>who am I to say
as a life affirmer yes you ARE

>>16205740
>You keep ignoring this because you’re scared.
No I'm answering you. You are fucking retarded. Fuck off I'm not answering a 3rd time.

>>16205730
You didn't explain shit
If you're the anon that says AN cares about the suffering of others why not shoot up a Walmart and ease their suffering
Non existence is better than existence after all right?

>>16205752
if I truly believed that a significantly good outcome would follow suicide, then I would commit suicide. Simple as

>>16205731
>They should definitely be removed, but the happy people should stay alive.

Even happy people keep producing (potentially) unhappy ones. They will always exist.

>>16205753
Humor me; how would shooting up Walmart ease anyones suffering? And what the fuck's it got to do with not having babies.

>>16205761
>Suicide suicide suicide suicide suicide suicide suicide
Stop replying to me, go talk to fucking psychiatrist about your suicide

>>16205768
>Stop replying to me, go talk to fucking psychiatrist about your suicide
I actually enjoy life, unlike you. I am glad that I was born, and yet you people want to take such a thing away for eternity. Don’t have children if you don’t want them, but don’t pretend that your view isn’t subjective.

>>16205753
...in order to traumatize hundreds of relatives?
Stop using the “why don’t you just kys” argument, it doesn’t work in any way.

>>16205731
as a life affirming man if you're telling other people that they should kill themselves then it's a contradiction on your behalf. and you stop living in a delusion that you "care" about life.

>>16205776
AN do not want to take anyone's life away. You have been mis-informed. Antinatalism means *ahem*: "It's better to not have kids because earthly existence is a pain." That's it.

>>16205768
Isn't the rationale for not having babies that existence is worse than non existence?
If so isn't it cruel to have people keep existing when you could stop them from existing?

>>16205782
I’m not life-affirming, I’m preference-affirming. Do whatever is most preferable to you. If it truly benefits you to kill yourself, then do it.

>>16205777
What is a little trauma (when life is already suffering) compared to freeing multiple people from decades of painful existence

>>16205787
but my earthly existence is not a net pain, so not being born would be the less preferable outcome

>>16205790
>They should definitely be removed, but the happy people should stay alive.
>I’m preference-affirming

>>16205368
And I'm going to stop you from raping my kids. What's your point? Besides, you wouldn't actually rape my kids; one of the greatest loopholes against your argument is the mere fact that most people don't want to do what you mention, and that we have a legal system and police designed to prevent such things. Or, if all else fails, self-defense.

>>16205442
There is one response to this, as I see it:
either we will abolish pain in the future, through genetic alterations, augmentation of the human body using technology, or something else in that vein. There will be no pain, as pain will be removed from the human experience; we will have unfeeling machines to do those tasks that would otherwise cause us pain (in other words, we leave being human to the machines, while we ourselves become more like machines). For some, this is transcending humanity. For others, this is becoming less than human.

Suffering is not inherent to life, as a side note; insects do not suffer. Plants do not suffer. We only suffer because our brains and nervous systems have the capacity for dysfunction or feeling pain. As we "progress," our ability to alter these things will also progress.

>does perpetual population growth inherently mean progress
No, the progress of technology. In this utopia-like future, perpetual population growth probably wouldn't matter, either way, considering the space we have in the cosmos. However, I am not a transhumanist, and I don't think much of perpetual population growth. I don't prefer it, but I do not think it to be evil.

>>16205509
>Fundamentally I didn't choose to exist
You didn't exist, there is no choice, but if we want to talk about some supernatural soup of potentiality that atheistic ANs think the unborn exist in, then how do you know that you didn't consent to being born?

> I just found myself to be existing when I woke up today
And you continue to choose to exist in every waking moment

>Ending my existence would require conscious effort, and I'm more inclined towards contemplation than towards action.
What you may or may not be inclined towards is unimportant, considering that existence is suffering, and it is immoral to expose yourself to suffering. Consent is unimportant, as you adopt a position of Utilitarianism; you gave your consent to suffer, but you still suffer, which is avoidable and unnecessary. It is not necessary to contemplate, but it is necessary to act in order to avoid suffering (and to avoid causing others suffering).

There is no "no." This is the equivalent of "I will reproduce even if it is immoral." "I will live even though it is immoral to exist."

Your final paragraph presents no arguments, by the way. Suicide would lead to less people, especially if you are a suicide bomber; of course, the limits of your actions are your impotence. You just want to "live life to the fullest, man" after being so traumatized by your birth. Another milquetoast anti-natalist.

>>16205712
>>16205753

One can indeed choose to live for many reasons. It is unknown if merely performing the act of suicide has the intended effect, it is unknown if simply "not being" and death are one and the same, killing one's self could be a concession to the very state of affairs that one hates on principle, i.e. if one truly hates the world than submitting one's self to the evils thereof would be Morally ambiguous, especially for potential "rewards", etc. etc. etc. Much more interesting than I MEK CHLIDE LOL!

>>16205789
You can't stop people from existing. Not if you kill one. Not if you kill a thousand. Not if you kill a hundred thousand. Not even Gengis Khan who affected the death of millions of humans could stop humanity from existing.

>>16205803
>people who prefer non-life shouldnt love
>people who prefer life should live
>not preference-affirming
you’re embarrassing

>>16205806
>Suicide would lead to less people
No. Just plain wrong. I'd die, and humans would multiply. The resources I made available by removing myself from existence would be consumed by other humans, who would in turn multiply. 3 days after I had died, more humans would exist than when I died. And a year later, even more humans would have multip... Do i need to type out this simple logical sequence for you to understand? This is just mathematics really.

>>16205814
>people who prefer non-life shouldnt love
they're preferring nonexistence for their future kids.
you should stop using should if you're preference-affirming

At the end of the day its your choice. Unless we just "wake up" to a humanity that entirerely mbraces AN. But the AN must spread his gospel

>>16205795
I’m not one of the people who tell you “non-existence is better than existence” in general. That’s a stupid assumption. I’ve never said anything should happen to perfectly happy people. ANs don’t want to kill anyone. However, there are, potentially, certain situations in which death is actually the preferable option (when exactly? that’s up to anyone to decide for themselves), that’s what ANs are trying to tell you. They have a problem with this possibility. Don’t assume everyone here believes in the exact same primitive ideas.

>>16205813
But you can make a difference for multiple people
You don't need to make every person in the world rich to give money to a beggar

>>16205886
AN:s don't wanna murder anyone.

>>16205810
>I MEK CHLIDE LOL!
>MAEK CHILDE BAD LOL!
You can simplfy every argument like this you actual retard

>>16205901
antinatalism in particular can be summed up with the thought "sometimes i feel bad, ergo the entire human race should go extinct"

>>16205910
>the entire human race should go extinct
This has never been AN:s opinion.

>>16205918
its the logical conclusion if its taken seriously as an ideology tho

>>16205924
Actually, it's not.

>>16205910
>"sometimes i feel bad, ergo the entire human race should go extinct"
There’s a difference between teenagers who hear about AN for the first time and people who experience actual suffering.

>>16205564
>>16205564
That's not even an argument. It's just an attempt to shame people from a position of rabid, excessive empathy and care. It would be like parents locking their children up in their home for fear of what the world will do to them. For fear of using a Nietzschean buzzword, utterly life-denying, effete, and debased.

>an act of pure reason alone
Pure reason can't hold any water. It's also fucking useless. Do you think we need to apply "pure reason" (translation: my personal biases) to every action? Why does he mention "pure reason," then go on to mention "sympathy?" Is your pure reason actually just subjective emotion with a weak veneer of "pure reason?"

>impose that burden upon it in cold blood
Not in cold blood, but in the warmest blood possible. I want them to grow. If they face a burden they cannot bear, I will bear it with them, and help them. If I am dead, I will have left them with my inheritance and the tools to bear the burden. If they still fail, it's their fault.

>>16205581
You cannot eliminate all life in the universe, and it cannot be better to not exist. Who is not existing? Who is better off not existing? You can say it is objectively better (in that there is less suffering being felt in general), but you cannot say that it would be better for any one entity. Of course, a lack of suffering that no one can feel is useless, so your position is weak.

>>16205613
> My philosophy wins automatically anyway, we all are gonna die
Hold on a moment, I thought your position was ALL about reproduction, and said nothing about existence or death. Your philosophy actually DOESN'T win, sorry, because people will always reproduce, and life (seeing as you're an atheist, as you don't mention an afterlife) will always come from nothing, forever.

> I'm ok with my fate because I know non-existence is a more preferable state
I'm okay with death as well, so I don't see how it's a victory for AN

>I still do not wanna die a bloody and terribly traumatic death
It won't really matter because you'll die eventually, right? Just like life, why do you have to end it quickly, even if there will be pain-

now, do you see my point? Life is painful, and non-existence is preferable. You NEED to speed up the process, and there is no reason to live. It's not necessary, but it is necessary to avoid suffering and avoid causing it.

>We are all gonna die anyway, give it 50 years or so
So the brevity of the pain experienced justifies life and existence, and causing pain? You will only live for ~60 years, but you will be not exist for eternity, therefore your suffering means nothing, and all actions are permissible

>>16205622
It's a risk I am willing to take, because I am the one who may or may not be culpable for the child's regret for being born, which is ultimately what would make reproduction evil. Reproduction is not evil in itself, you lot merely argue that it causing unneeded/ unjust/ unasked-for suffering is what makes it bad.

>>16205860
OK now this is an actual argument and something I actually agree with
But how many times does a horrific situation where death is preferable actually happen? Most people are happy with their lives
Too many people enjoy living to make a blanket statement like
>having children is immoral
in my opinion
Saying that you yourself don't want children because of the possibility of horrible suffering is something I kind of agree with and makes you look less like a faggot (not saying you look like a faggot I'm just speaking generally)

>>16205963
>it cannot be better to not exist
I'm saying it is. You're just contradicting me but you're not really saying why it would be better to exist, than to not exist.
>you will be not exist for eternity
I'm not so sure about that. I might just be born again, perhaps in some other body.

>>16205901

That was a generous interpretation given your performance in this thread.

>>16205963
he is saying if you can't do with reason then do it for sympathy.
also it's disrespectful to read Schopenhauer out of context. start with The World as Will and Representation if you want to understand schopenhauer's position.

>Nietzschean buzzword, utterly life-denying, effete, and debased.
yeah nietzsche was an utterly life-denying, effete, and debased faggot who died childless from a diseases that he got from fucking filthy whores in a remote shithole away from society

>>16205970
Also I know I told people to kill themselves multiple times in this thread but please don't actually do it
I was just trying to show the logical extreme (I think that's the term I'm esl) of the ''all existence is suffering'' line of thinking

>>16206027
My performance BTFOing the ''existence is pain'' underages?

>>16205622
Besides,
>morally and intellectually bestial
is not an argument.
I have to not reproduce so I can be intellectually and morally superior? So I can have more money, more free time, the chance to pursue a hobby, the avoidance of child-related suffering? Anti-natalism is seeming more and more like the more selfish philosophy, and still doesn't present a convincing punishment against child-bearers. There is no Hell for them, nothing.

>>16205667
Why are you so presumptuous? I've suffered like a dog because of my appearance. It kept me inside, hating myself all the time. Eventually, you get tired of hate, and you try to move on and fix your life. It's a downer's event horizon; granted, not everyone gets their shit together. Some just keep spiraling further and further down.

>This is the kind of suffering that sparks AN ideas
Suffer well, then.

> In many cases, it’s not simple enough to call it a “phase”
Sure

>I would never be able to tell myself my child “needs to suffer”.
It's clear you've never had a family life, or any serious struggles. My parents told me that I'd suffer for my foolish decisions all the time. They acknowledged that if I kept going down that path, I would suffer, and that that suffering would be a wake up call.

Before you get out your Stockholm Syndromes, think about this:
>if you walk over that cliff, you'll break a leg
>what the fuck, that's evil! You can't tell me that I'll break a leg, I need to prove my manliness!
>walks over the cliff, breaks his leg, and learns to never walk over cliffs again, and that it doesn't make him a man
Needing to suffer is about learning lessons, not whatever sniveling, sadistic caricature you have in your mind that's saying, "you need to suffer, you insolent brat."

Stop trying to tell me about suffering, if you really felt great suffering, you'd be more empathetic, and you'd actually help out people that exist. You can't even convince people to stop reproducing, so you're wasting time here. You can, however, work at a soup kitchen, talk to a homeless man, or be someone's shoulder to cry on.

>>16205689
You're right, it's more of a rationalization of r/foreveralone

>>16205692
And think about how many people you could be helping right now instead of wasting your time making posts like this
>>16205681
But I guess that at the end of the day, it's enough to just get a vasectomy and pat yourself on the back. Fitting, for the philosophical equivalent of an invertebrate

>>16205723
It is. The only thing you can do to a necrotic limb is to cut it off before the infection spreads to surrounding tissues, so that the body may live. Of course, we've also told you to be stoic and man up, but you don't want to change. Keep rotting away, if you so choose

>>16205761
And I don't believe a significantly bad outcome will follow birth.

>>16205762
And vice-versa

>>16201225
people die when they are killed

>>16205963
>If they still fail, it's their fault.
>It's a risk I am willing to take, because I am the one who may or may not be culpable for the child's regret for being born

What did he mean by this? You are accountable inasmuch as you get the results you wanted but not accountable if you don't? LITERALLY an animal.

>>16205768
>>16205768
You kill breeders, and they stop existing, so they do not suffer. They will be grieved for, doubtlessly, but you have to see which pain will be greater.
Humored yet?

>Stop replying to me, go talk to fucking psychiatrist about your suicide
You are the one who needs a psychiatrist, judging by your beliefs. If you believed existence was worse than non-existence, you'd act like it.

>>16205787
There are things AN presupposes

>>16205813
Ditto reproduction. Ditto life in general

>>16205829
It WOULD lead to less people, friend. In the end, it most likely would not because it would only free up resources. However, there would be a deficit of people until the resources are used.

>>16205918
You're right, it's- "All life should be extinct."

>>16206025
I said why it is not better to not exist. There is no entity for whom it is better to not exist. The entity, or consciousness, would have to exist.

>>16206025
Might

>>16206041
Forget Nietzsche, engage with the argument

Reason does not always align with sympathy, and sympathy should not always be followed.

>>16205970
Good, now I think we’re understanding each other

>But how many times does a horrific situation where death is preferable actually happen?
I have to admit those are rare, but think of the people who are unhappy or even severely depressed for their entire lives. Often, no “you can become a happy person!” will ever help them, their own view is relevant to them because it’s them who get to experience their existence.
My point here is that a “more rational” way of viewing the world isn’t important because it doesn’t make them happy to be alive either.
I don’t consider myself a full-blown AN, I just find myself agreeing with and understanding many of their ideas; I’m seriously bothered by the fact that all suffering could *potentially* be prevented and I don’t believe any amount of happiness can outweigh, or justify, some extreme pain, suffering etc., that’s all.

>>16206094
No, I'm accountable for what I failed to do. If someone gets my kid hooked on drugs after my death, it's not my fault that he becomes a junkie. I gave him my inheritance, he blew it on crack. I told him to stay away from drugs, he didn't care or got tricked. I gave him the tools to deal with addiction, now it's up to him to get himself out of his rut. I can't sway all of his decisions, I'm no god

>>16206073
>It is. The only thing you can do to a necrotic limb
every other person isn't your body you narcissistic retard
if you're telling people to kill themselves then it's a contradiction on your behalf as a life affirming man

>>16206126
>I don’t believe any amount of happiness can outweigh, or justify, some extreme pain, suffering etc., that’s all
That's fair even though I think the opposite I can see where you're coming from

>>16206119
>I said why it is not better to not exist. There is no entity for whom it is better to not exist. The entity, or consciousness, would have to exist.
You basically just contradicted yourself - consciousness is that entity you are looking for.

>>16206119
>Reason does not always align with sympathy, and sympathy should not always be followed.
that's why i mentioned if
schopenhauer knew that humans don't act with rationality and most of them act sympathetically so that's why he put that condition

>>16206137

This is totally result-based, with everything then backwardly reasoned therefrom. Crack some walnuts with a stone while you're at it.

>>16206157
Nice, a moral dilemma. We won’t be able to convince each other of anything different here, which is fine. I wonder if additional experience in life will change anything about my current view.

>>16205246
>is not necessary to view it as an evil, or painful thing, either
>not a painful thing
Except it is, both on a physical level (if you commit suicide) AND most importantly on an existential level, as you have the constant and ominous feeling that death is going to be inevitable (or imminent, in the case I find myself all alone on a rooftop, with the void in front of me) down the road? You create a being biogically programmed to wanting to live above all, only to make it die later. And this is regardless of the quantity of pain you went through during your life, as death is inevitable, no amount of happiness you felt is suddenly going to cancel it. Sure, you can do everything in your might to alleviate this dread by being busy with love, hobbies and whatever (one in fact does everything in their might to live the best life they can as they've already entered existence), but why couldn't this be prevented altogether?
The presence of death in one's life being the ultimate factor of existential pain is why "If you think your personal life sucks so much, you can fix it by killing yourself" is not only a contradiction, but in fact an argument in favor of AN. You've forced me in a situation where I, a being attached to his own existence, are forced to choose voluntarily what I abhor he most if I want to escape the other pain I experience during my own existence.
People with shitty lives already suffer because, well, they lead shitty lives; people with "happy" lives, if they focus clearly on the human condition, realize all of what they cherish (to which they're obviously attached) is going to be taken away from them. A person who believes in AN doesn't say "Since life sucks, I'm going to kill myself", they say "I wish I had never existed in first place so I wouldn't have to experience this horrible feeling of death approaching right now". ANs, observing the situation, ask you: "why did you have to create an entity that is attached to their own existence if the laws of the universe are going to strip them of this very thing they're attached to and cause him dread because of this? Why couldn't you spare them this pain?".

Reply to this without "You just say this because you'd be a terrible parent!", "It's good that you think about this, that way you can remove yourself from the gene pool", "something something Reddit" or the evergreen "Fucking Jews, man, I bet this is an idea they came up with to destroy the White race".

>>16206073
>Why are you so presumptuous?...
If this is true, sorry for those assumptions. You suffered more than I did. I hope it’s not necessary for anyone to feel this terrible in order to appreciate happiness, or suffering, or anything in life. I’m at a point where I’m unable to appreciate any of this.

>>16206225
very based post
this reminds me of the story part of a confession

>There is an Eastern fable, told long ago, of a traveller overtaken on a plain by an enraged beast. Escaping from the beast he gets into a dry well, but sees at the bottom of the well a dragon that has opened its jaws to swallow him. And the unfortunate man, not daring to climb out lest he should be destroyed by the enraged beast, and not daring to leap to the bottom of the well lest he should be eaten by the dragon, seizes s twig growing in a crack in the well and clings to it. His hands are growing weaker and he feels he will soon have to resign himself to the destruction that awaits him above or below, but still he clings on. Then he sees that two mice, a black one and a white one, go regularly round and round the stem of the twig to which he is clinging and gnaw at it. And soon the twig itself will snap and he will fall into the dragon's jaws. The traveller sees this and knows that he will inevitably perish; but while still hanging he looks around, sees some drops of honey on the leaves of the twig, reaches them with his tongue and licks them. So I too clung to the twig of life, knowing that the dragon of death was inevitably awaiting me, ready to tear me to pieces; and I could not understand why I had fallen into such torment. I tried to lick the honey which formerly consoled me, but the honey no longer gave me pleasure, and the white and black mice of day and night gnawed at the branch by which I hung. I saw the dragon clearly and the honey no longer tasted sweet. I only saw the unescapable dragon and mice, and I could not tear my gaze from them. and this is not a fable but the real unanswerable truth intelligible to all. The deception of the joys of life which formerly allayed my terror of the dragon now no longer deceived me. No matter how often I may be told, "You cannot understand the meaning of life so do not think about it, but live," I can no longer do it: I have already done it too long. I cannot now help seeing day and night going round and bringing me to death. That is all I see, for that alone is true. All else is false. The two drops of honey which diverted my eyes from the cruel truth longer than the rest: my love of family, and of writing -- art as I called it -- were no longer sweet to me. "Family"... said I to myself. But my family -- wife and children -- are also human. They are placed just as I am: they must either live in a lie or see the terrible truth. Why should they live? Why should I love them, guard them, bring them up, or watch them? That they may come to the despair that I feel, or else be stupid? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them: each step in knowledge leads them to the truth. And the truth is death.
Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

1) I exist and experience pleasure and pain

2) Pain by itself is life-denying, when I'm suffering I curse my sentience and want this pain to stop, even at the cost of my existence. Pleasure by itself is life-affirming, when I experience pleasure I bless my sentience and want to keep going on existing.

3) Throughout the course of my life I'm confident about that fact that I experienced more pain than pleasure.

So if I were to sum it up, there was more time in my life where I wanted end my sentience than to let it be. I'm unaware if people around me are really conscious but they share the same body as me, considering that you can never be sure about anything I just follow my instinct: I consider that my children will be conscious and experience the amount of pleasure and suffering as me.

Some people argue that pain is life-affirming, which is false. Pain in essence is sentience denying itself, it's a feeling that you don't want to experience. Not wanting to experience = either replace this feeling by pleasure or end sentience. Pleasure is temporary, ending sentience seems (you cannot be sure of this tho) eternal.

This is my take on this as an AN.

>>16206225
anon, these exactly my thoughts
how do you cope with these thoughts from day to day? what is your life like?

>>16201291
Do you have books about Ethica to advise, anon ?
I like a lot what you said, thank you for sharing it here.

What I never understand about antinatalists and other depressive nihilistic people is if they've ever seen the natural beauty in the world. I think that, despite all hardship that man faces in life, life also brings you sights and experiences that I would want everyone to experience.
Maybe I'm a stupid hippie that has fried his head with acid to the point where flowers and leaves are enough to bring me joy, but god damn if this joy isn't worth living for!

Is suffering impossible in the womb?
If not, AN btfo'd

>>16206475
Of course this kind of beauty/joy exists, but depressed people are literally unable to appreciate it. Most of them would probably love to appreciate it again. I have a problem with enjoying it as well.

>>16206485
It's definitely possible, there's no question about it.

>>16204370
That's irrelevant. You don't need someone to tell you to do something for it be moral.
This is your mindset? Where you will only do things if you're told to them?
You're hypoagencic.
>>16204971
>Seconded. We move on, with or without these pessimistic doomsayers. Suffering be damned, the ends justify the means to these Utilitarian fucks anyway. If we create an eternal utopia on earth without suffering, all this pain will have been a dream. Of course, I'm just putting that forth as a possibility, I don't believe in transhumanism. I believe in Heaven.
I hold similar beliefs as well. It doesn't matter how much suffering there is now because it's just a finite price to pay for infinite goodness.
For ex: it doesn't matter if the risk of my stock portfolio going to zero is higher than zero since stocks have no upper bound. I am risking a finite amount for a potential infinite amount.
Btw, sidenote, I think the "Problem of Evil" atheists should take into account the afterlife. Once you add in the afterlife, there's no "paradox". Not that there was one anyway since I don't believe my creator can ever be evil in the first place, but it would resolve the "paradox" in their eyes. I'm not a Christian btw, since Christianity is Communism and Jesus was the first woke leftist.
>>16205150
>HURR DURR why do natalists produce antinatalists?
HURR DURR WHY DO DOCTORS KEEP PRODUCING SICK PEOPLE?
If my children ever devolved into antinatalists, I would realize I failed my job in raising them.

>>16205462
>antinatalism isn't about
>>"gonna heckin kill myself because life sucks lmao"
>It's about:
>>"Existing is worse than not existing so it is immoral to have children"
>Now it's been refuted seventy-gorillion and one times.

You're a moron who hasn't refuted shit. If an ideology (antinatalism) rests on underlying presuppositions (that existence is bad), then that ideology MUST be associated with those underlying presuppositions and the implications of those presuppositions, even if it's defined as something else on the surface. You don't get to pick and choose.
For ex: "natalism is about existing is better than not existing so it's moral to have children", THEREFORE "I'm NOT going to kill myself". A suicidal natalist WOULD be a hypocrite.
Another ex: democracy is about how nonrepresentation is bad so government should be controlled by voting, therefore a democracy advocate who creates an undemocratic government would be a hypocrite.

>>16206762
You went through all these mental hoops just so you could repeat the old "Then why havent you kysed yourself heh check mate AN:s" trope again?

>>16205509
>I would have to be very retarded in order to accept this argument. Because, there are billions of human beings other than myself. And several more were born as I was typing this out. Hence, suicide would not lead to less number of people on earth. In fact if I wanted less humans to be alive, ending my life in this instant would probably be, logically speaking, one of the worst possible courses of action in the universe. You'd have to have a literal fucking monkey brain to make the non-argument that
If that's a valid argument, then so is having children, since there are already so many children so it doesn't matter.
You are either a hypocrite, or a retard.
Your position also implies that as long as you don't need to make a conscious choice, then you're okay with risking of suddenly getting murdered.
>>16205564
After I encountered antinatalists, I used reason to create another child. My first children were just me having sex, now children are a willful creation.
So explain that.
>>16206225
>>16206257
>antinatalists shouldn't commit suicide because they feel that death is inevitable.
I thought that was your whole argument for nonexistence? Because it's eternal state of nonsuffering? Shouldn't you be ecstatic about that?
BTW, clearly nonexistence is not eternal since then you wouldn't exist.
Basically, it sounds like you're just complaining that there isn't a consumer-minded suicide option like a future suicide booth.
I can also use your "hurr durr is feels ominous" to justify my natalist actions. QED.
>>16206262
>pain is life-denying
>to stop pain, I'm life-denying
wew I swear these fucks are trolling

>>16206827
It's a trope because it works.
The fact is that if you choose to prolong your own life, then you will suffer more. Thus, you are a hypocrite.
You. Are. A. Hypocrite.

>>16206845
It doesn't work.

>>16206833
If having children is fundamentally immoral, then you think that we should have children, because there are many children in the world? How does that make any sense? I'm kind of getting the feeling that you really want it to be moral (having children I mean) because you are doing it right now in your life. Like, you have a dog in the game.

>>16206762
>>16206833
It's hard to believe that this level retardedness and illiteracy is achievable

>>16206762

Mind the distinction between being against birth and being against life.

>>16206845
>If you want [x], why don’t you just [y]? If you don’t, you’re a hypocrite!
Replace x and y with a few examples you can think of and you’ll soon realize why this doesn’t work.

>>16205246
>If the child regrets his or her birth, too fucking bad. I did my part, I'm always there if he or she needs me. It's a risk I'm willing to take

AKA, "I don't care if my child suffers greatly, I'm a low-iq, low empathy moronic breeder".

I don't even see the point of these threads and debates. I can't believe I'm even responding to someone as worthless as you.

>>16206833
>>antinatalists shouldn't commit suicide because they feel that death is inevitable.
ANs don't commit suicide because their problem is pain, both physical and existential, and the act (and before it, the very thought of committing that act) of suicide is what they abhor, as it brings death and as they've become attached to life the very moment they came into existence. If they don't ever come into existence, they can never feel this dreadful feeling of abhorrence.
>A person who believes in AN doesn't say "Since life sucks, I'm going to kill myself", they say "I wish I had never existed in first place so I wouldn't have to experience this horrible feeling of death approaching right now". ANs, observing the situation, ask you: "why did you have to create an entity that is attached to their own existence if the laws of the universe are going to strip them of this very thing they're attached to and cause him dread because of this? Why couldn't you spare them this pain?"

>>16206910
There isn't.
>>16206856
It does.
>>16206887
I am a father, yes. Your kind is saying that between two worlds, one where my children exist, and one where my children don't, you would pick the later. Thus, I consider your kind a threat. Your kind should be *********. It's why we need a natalist leader who will do this to your kind.
>>16206933
>>If you want [x], why don’t you just [y]? If you don’t, you’re a hypocrite!
>Replace x and y with a few examples you can think of and you’ll soon realize why this doesn’t work.
The actual line would be:
If you don't want [x] because [y], then don't do [z] because [y].
Where x here is the creation of new children, y is "suffering will happen", and z is anything that causes [y], such as living to see tomorrow.
>>16206955
Then I will use the appeal to pain and discomfort to justify my natalist behavior.

>>16207015
It's lamentable that you chose to have children. But it's not the end of the world. I do not get to choose between two worlds, it was your choice. I'm saying you should have chosen not to have kids. Of course, you didn't, lamentable but that just sets you apart from the superior men who choose not to have kids. I'll probably succumb to lust and have kids of my own one day but I will stay true to my principle.
>U need to die u are my enemy die die die *** unspeakable things uuggghhh hate u very much
Yea yea heard it before a few times

>>16207034
No one said you get to choose which world, I said what world you WOULD choose.

You are either trolling, or a hypocrite retard.

>>16207015
>There isn't.

There is. Life precedes birth by all Ontologies.

>>16207015
If you're a father and you're debating antinatalism with early twenty/late teen neets on 4 fucking chan then congratulations, you have already failed as a parent.

>>16207062
retard hypocrite trolling. I don't get to make a choice between any worlds. I said that twice now. You made the choice.

>>16207072
I don't think he has failed. He's obv. confused. He ought to read Paul in the New Testament. My AN standpoints are only the same as his.

>>16207015
>I am a father, yes. Your kind is saying that between two worlds, one where my children exist, and one where my children don't, you would pick the later. Thus, I consider your kind a threat. Your kind should be *********. It's why we need a natalist leader who will do this to your kind.

lol you must be trolling?

>>16207072
Not really though, you may as well say a father is a failure if he chooses to watch television for an hour or whatever.

>>16207081
>>16207098
I think he is trolling but desu this place isn't healthy and "normal" at all if you're married and have kids. If someone want to raise a family then they should stop using this website long before their marriage.

>>16207121
I'd love to stay and discuss it but I gotta sleep, so goodnight now all Anons.

>>16207121
I really fail to see how being on twitter or anything else is any better

There is no purpose in hating ANs. Doing so probably means you are insecure about your own beliefs. It should be pretty understandable that some people came to the conclusion that the modern world is so sick that living in it will always be a struggle. I assume the real reason you hate ANs though is because most of them are just depressed losers and if they got their shit together they would immediately drop this belief (I know one person like this who now is starting a family)

>>16207151
People call 4chan the anus of the internet for a reason, anon

>>16207192
And I don't agree or I wouldnt be here

>>16207207
Then you lack self awareness

Let’s be honest guys. The only reason any of you want to have kids is because you were told and accepted that the purpose of life is to get married, have kids, work to support them, etc. You were given these beliefs, you didn’t arrive to them on your own or through studying your philosophy though you would like to think so.
While it is the case that the desire to reproduce is natural, you must realize that humans have overridden our natural functions with our minds. For example, the purpose of sex is reproduction. But we have learned to abuse our sensory organs to have sex for pleasure, which is something that nature never intended. This means anyone’s desire to have kids, so far as it is a belief, is 100% cultural, ideological, imagined, or however you want to put it. With that being said, the belief that having kids is okay is just as made up as the belief that having kids is wrong. Animals aren’t supposed to function like this. They simply procreate when they find themselves in the right situation. So whatever side you pick, you are living in your head. It seems like on any given day the natalists or the anti-natalists come out of the bush works, but just know you are all faggots living in your head and please don’t for one second believe that these discussions are useful for anything other than entertainment.

>>16207321
Thank you, great post overall. Everyone in this thread needs to read this and realize what a steaming shitshow this entire discussion is.

>>16206323
I'm afraid to disappoint you: I don't have an answer to this first question. I, like everyone else, distract myself with activities I more or less enjoy, from chitchatting to visiting museums, but the everpresent thought of worthlessness of all of this eventually catches up to me: and even then, it diminishes the enjoyment of said activities.
My life is far from being /lit/ (my knowledge of arts and philosophy principally comes from my highschool education), mostly due to time costraints, but I lurk this board precisely because I want to change it. This is strictly connected to my stance: I feel the spasmodic need for an answer and I believe books could lend me a hand in this journey. I don't know if there's a light at the end of the tunnel, but I certainly know there is the void behind me, so all I can do is keep going forward. I absolutely cannot stop, or else I'm done for, I have to move forward if I want the possibility of an answer. Which isn't incredibly exciting either: I'm not getting an answer by doing this, but the possibility of one. Still better than the certainty of nothing.
This shouldn't be a surprise, but I'm not religious (I don't find anything wrong with trying to build an ontological system, possibly based on a logical first principle: but that's just ontology, religion is another thing and promiscuous terminology isn't going to make me fail to distinguish the two as separate) and so I don't have any reason to believe into an afterlife that justifies the existence I currently experience. Would my views change if I were to have similar beliefs? Most probably yes. Do I find this a good reason to start believing? Absolutely not. In fact, I find the prospect quite disgusting, it gives me the idea of an escapist drug addict. "You should be a believer because otherwise you'll be sad" is a good way to turn me away from religion. If you believe because you sincerely think there is a higher being, that's perfectly fine, but using religion as your personal delusion to put a preventive bandaid on anything wrong that could happen is, I think, insulting to religion and truly religious people themselves too. Putting it on a more profane level, I very often see people who go on with their lives and don't ask themselves such questions. Do I envy their bliss? I do get this temptation, but I instantly tell myself "Don't do this. Please, suffer, but don't ever avert your eyes from truth just because it's comfortable. Please, continue to suffer with dignity and an unclouded mind".
As I said, I'm not certain there is a light at the end of the tunnel, but I know that I'm going to regret it immensely if I don't try. And on the unfortunate occasion where I'd have to say "It was all for naught" on my deathbed, at least I'll be able to say "but I tried with all my might". So, that's how I live: with gritted teeth, fighting strenuously against the ruin that befalls those who give up, in search for an answer that may or may not exist for me.

>>16207430
you are in love with yourself so much that you created a whole story and purpose for your existence; the bearer of the REAL TRUTH. You aren’t like those other sheep, look at them, turning a blind eye to the void that awaits us all. But in all seriousness, it’s hard for me not to find people like you funny because all your supposed suffering is nothing more than your own narcissism. You can do whatever you want in your free time and you chose to LARP as the troubled deep-thinker. If you’re going to do that at least take refuge in debauchery like Dazai unless you are a complete masochist.

>>16207565
>you created a whole story and purpose for your existence; the bearer of the REAL TRUTH.
As I said, I don't know the purpose of my life nor its intrinsic truth. They might escape me for all my life span, or might not even exist at all. All I know is what I don't want to be the purpose of my life, as I don't find it truthful: the prospect of chasing reassuring ideas simply because they might alleviate my pain. If being coherent with my own principles requires me to suffer, so be it. If there's something worse than a life where I suffer, it's the life of a hypocrite, who's nothing more than a liar.

>>16207185
>no reason to hate AN's
>attached pic in >>16201452
Pick One

>>16207321
False. I create children (excluding the first one that just happened), because it's a constructive action. My moral agency increases with every child that I create. I uphold more moral responsibility than the childless.
In fact, I'd argue that the culture is all about how bad it is to have kids. People use to be parents by the time they were 18. Now, not so. Because we brainwash gullible into sterilizing themselves.
It's called natural selection. You win the Darwin Award.
>>16207565
The perpetuation of life pushes away the void.

Here's the closing fact: antinatalists are hypocrites because they choose to suffer every day, they are just rationalizing their inability to procreate or they have a female personality trait to feel disgust at getting pregnant (females of all species have an instinctual reaction to try to avoid getting pregnant to test the fitness of the male. See:
https://youtu.be/512EAAsksVc?t=2259
All of the above create cognitive dissonance in the antinatalist until it has to come up with an ad hoc philosophy to alleviate their pain and justify their genetic failure.

>yeah dude, I'm the epic masculine trad man and you are the brainwashed beta incel who drinks a certain vegetable drink
Yawn.

>>16207974
I can't imagine what it's like to be this stupid. How do you post something like that with full sincerity and not immediately blow your head off out of shame?

>>16200909
>Anti-natalism
If anyone is stupid enough to convince themselves not just to opt out of the gene pool, but to glorify the act as "the right thing to do," why would I stop them? It's natural selection in action; it's eugenic; and it personally benefits my own children to have reduced competition. I'd even go further to ask that AN's kill themselves, so that society might redistribute their finite resources towards furthering the common good. To be intentionally child-free is to be a parasite on mankind. Thank god it's also a losing strategy.

>>16208296
>feeling shame on an anonymous board
>feeling shame at procreating
>feeling shame at being right
I'm done engaging with you, troll.

>>16208307
>Look at me, I make kids, I'm so smart. Everyone who doesn't is stupid, just look at how smart I am, I make kids. Haha I'm so smart, watch me make another kid. Now watch me fill his head with lies and send him to public school haha I'm so smart

>>16208307
>eugenics

>>16208307
In the grand scheme of things it doesn't matter. Whether humans exist or not. It doesn't change anything.

>>16208438
Your post doesn't matter.
>>16208404
>childless
>smart
pick one

You don't know shit unless you've created a human.

>>16207974
>(excluding the first one that just happened),
Filthy beast.

>>16208307
You talk about your childrens competition on the one hand, and the "common good" on the other. You can't have it both ways.

>>16208307
>To be intentionally child-free is to be a parasite on mankind
Mankind is a parasite for itself since the start.

>>16208563
>You don't know shit unless you've created a human.

You didn't anything but cum in a woman idiot.

>>16208563
>Your parents create human
>Turns out to be a faggot who argues incessantly on a chinese cartoon forum
I highly doubt you are going to do any better lmao

>>16201086
Assume 99% of people are happy. Assume 1% is very unhappy and those will be the depressives and suicidal ones.
If you're in the 99%, it makes no sense to fear your child being in the 1%, right? But if they end up being in the 1%, what consolation do they have? Why did you make this bet with their life?

Every person who ever killed themselves, or spent a life of low quality with incurable chronic diseases, or was abused, or whatever of the other "1%" horrible things, was birthed by people who had the choice of not having that child.
Of course it doesn't make sense to you to talk about suffering if most of the suffering you felt in your life feels reasonable.

But in my experience even people who lead moderately ok lives and get through painful moments well might end up changing their tune when they're 80~90 years old bound to a chair. The main thing is there are people already living that 80 year old life in their 30s.

>>16207974
>they are just rationalizing their inability to procreate
>proceeds to rationalize his ability to procreate

this dude is right >>16207321

these threads are never not a total unmitigated fucking embarrassment for both sides. a literal reddit embassy

>>16208563
>You don't know shit unless you've created a human.
Hubris.

>>16208607
>>16207321
Both of you are idiots.
Every single life form, ever since the first once, has only been selected by nature due to its ability to replicate itself. You think a billion years of selective pressure has no influence on the idea that you must procreate? Your body has a trillion hard wired systems to reward you for every tiny little step you take in the direction of having a child. That is the literal, unironic only thing your entire organism was built to do.

It literally just rewards whatever you do that brings you a step closer to passing your genes along, and punishes anything you do that threatens that. It is culture that follows this, and not the other way around.

Dumb people that say having children is the meaning of life are accidentally correct. It is the unique purpose that biological life forms evolved to fulfill.

At the same time. This is, in my opinion, an argument in favor of antinatalism. This is exactly the reason no "natalist" person cna ever come up with a really good reason for having children. It literally isn't necessary. There is no need for you in particular to have one, but you will anyway. And that child might starve, be born with defects, have horrible diseases, whatever the fuck, or maybe live nicely and make the same bet you made one day, but all of you are just doing this for a biological push guided by a bunch of cells and tingles in your brain.

IF YOU WOULD PUT YOUR SICK OLD DOG OR A RUN OVER DEER OUT OF MISERY BUT YOU DONT UNDERSTAND ANTINATALISM YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE.

>>16200909
AN's tend to be teenagers who don't know jack shit about anything and want to be edgy.

>>16208670
Most of the natalist don't know shit about anything either, that's why they do kids, because they "want"...

>>16208657
>comparing children to sick old dogs
You're so fucking dumb.

You're right that I don't need to justify my natalist behavior, but the fact is that I can: true beliefs can't exist without people, music/art/philosophy/science/values/morals/etc need people to be born before they can exist. When I create a person, I'm creating a scientist/artist/philosopher/etc.

You're wrong about every human being biologically driven to procreate. What we're driven towards is propagating our genes, not necessarily making children. In fact, some groups of humans evolved to not make too many kids because resources were scarce and you needed to make sure there weren't too many people. Coincidentally, those groups are white and asian groups that evolved in resource/scarce environments. So it's no surprise that there's an antinatalist biological reaction in whites/asians who live in cities.

Yes, antinatalism is a biological reaction.

>>16208670
I have never met a teenager who knows or cares enough about philosophy to describe themselves as "antinatalist". You're full of shit.
Antinatalists are people who went through some kind of pain they don't wish their children to experience. That's basically it. Note that those who aren't in economic conditions to have a kid right now, so they don't attempt, are not necessarily "antinatalists". They're just responsible planners. Antinatalism is specifically about not having children, regardless of your economic conditions, because you don't want them to potentially suffer something horrible.

People who have kids on the other hand often times do it for whatever random reason, or just because "it's what you do". Right? The progression is date, get married, have a kid. It's what you do. There's no greater thought behind it. Sometimes there is but it seems to be a minority. Back then there were also more cases of "well we need more hands to work the land here". In china also, "we need male sons to help us when we are old".

>>16208712
antinatalism is not a philosophy. it's a biological reaction.

>>16208707
>>16208716
Define biological reaction, otherwise everything Humans do or think is a biological reaction and thus it's not an argument.

>>16208707
>When I create a person, I'm creating a scientist/artist/philosopher/a murderer/a pedophile/a terrorist/ect...

>>16208707
>scientist/artist/philosopher/etc.

Are you? Using your same statistical reasoning. Are you? What percentage of people born turn into those professions. What percentage of people into those professions do something impactful at the world level? Why should your kid bear this responsibility of some bizarre fucking idea you have of contributing to art or science? Do that yourself. Contribute to art and philosophy right now if you want to. We were unlucky enough to be put here at the whims of others, lets make the best of it, but that doesn't seem like a strong reason to put anyone else through the same.

>>16208707
>You're right that I don't need to justify my natalist behavior, but the fact is that I can: true beliefs can't exist without people, music/art/philosophy/science/values/morals/etc need people to be born before they can exist.
Yes and you're there. Do it yourself you arrogant prick.

>>16208748
stop projecting how your kid would turn out onto a father like me
>>16208745
If I put an antinatalist into a different natural and social environment, they would stop being an antinatalist.
For ex: take a group of 100 antinatalists (50 males and 50 females) out of the city away from the internet, and put them into the wilderness. They will have children within a year even if you provide birthcontrol methods.
The reason for this is that antinatalism is a biological reaction of a k selection animal to living in a dense area.
We can fund this experiment.
>>16208768
My children are not a random sample of all humans. Just like we're not a random sample of all humans. There's selection effects.
I can't believe I have to explain basic stats.
>>16208780
No. I will create even more people to help me create even more scientists/musicians/artists/philosophers/etc.
I swear to God, I was going to stop at 2 kids, but I will now never stop because of your kind. Isn't that ironic? The more you argue, the more children are created.

>>16208707
The idea is not that children are sick old dogs, you dense fuck.
The idea is that your child could end up living miserably despite your best efforts, for factors you can't control, and no one is going to put them out of their misery or console them. They'll just tell your child to keep living and have children themselves.

When your old dog is sick, you don't think about whether it already had kids or not, maybe you even fucking neutered the dog so it never could fuck around and reproduce anyway. You just wanted to have this thing living happy and if it ever gets sick or unhappy enough you euthanize it. Humans can't afford this same treatment. Some people aren't willing to make this bet. It's really less complicated than most make it seem.

>>16208814
>The reason for this is that antinatalism is a biological reaction of a k selection animal to living in a dense area.
Is there any evidence at all that this is the case?
>If I put an antinatalist into a different natural and social environment, they would stop being an antinatalist.
Oh, I see you are just making shit up. Ok then.

>>16208814
You are exactly the reason why antinatalism exists. I feel sorry if any of your kids ends up being unhappy.
Note that this has nothing to do with you being a good parent or not. You might be the best dad ever. They could still end up in an inconsolable situation at some point of their life, all because you thought you had this duty to bring philosophers to the world.

>>16207215
at least I dont choose to spend my time somewhere I dislike, as you apparently do

>>16208712
Tons of teens are pseudo-philosophers

>>16208815
>hurr durr something bad might happen
Nirvana Fallacy.
Just because something bad might happen is not a reason to not do it. Something bad might happen when you go online, or read a book, or drive a car, or eat food.

One, I don't treat my pets that way. We had a blind dog for over a decade.

Two, I don't treat my children like you treat pets.

You are so fucking dumb. I gotta say, thank fuck you won't reproduce.

>>16208834
>Is there any evidence at all that this is the case?
Most antinatalists are white/asian who live in cities or who don't own land.

You have to understand that selection pressure is not necessarily procreation pressure.

>>16208835
If my kids are unhappy/depressed/antinatalist then I have failed my duty in raising them correctly.

Can they get cancer? Yes. So what? Does that mean they shouldn't exist? You're fucking retarded. Just because something bad might happen doesn't mean shit.

>>16208872
>Most antinatalists are white/asian who live in cities or who don't own land.
Do you have any evidence at all that this is the case? Or are you just making shit up like you have been so far?

>>16208814
>If I put an antinatalist into a different natural and social environment, they would stop being an antinatalist.
For ex: take a group of 100 antinatalists (50 males and 50 females) out of the city away from the internet, and put them into the wilderness. They will have children within a year even if you provide birthcontrol methods.
The reason for this is that antinatalism is a biological reaction of a k selection animal to living in a dense area.
We can fund this experiment.

I'm an antiniatalist who got a vasectomy. Checkmate!

>I swear to God, I was going to stop at 2 kids, but I will now never stop because of your kind. Isn't that ironic? The more you argue, the more children are created.

No antinatalist is actually out here crying because you personally are having children. It's an ethical stance towards procreation in general. As an analogy, it's like vegans taking a stance against the exploitation of animals in general, rather than crying because a particular male chick was killed.

If you go on antinatalists forums/discussion sites, the vast majority of conversation is just theoretical. Most antinatalists are also completely pessimistic about making any sort of impact on reproductive rates (except their own). It's a question of what is the right thing to do, and doing it.

As in, no antinatalist is being 'spited' by you reproducing. The only person that suffers is your child. But hey, you do you. Clearly antinatalism triggers you though.

>>16200909
Absolutely cringe ideology

>>16208872
most antinatalists are actually indian

>>16208872
>Can they get cancer? Yes. So what? Does that mean they shouldn't exist?
The only way for you to be ABSOLUTELY SURE they won't get cancer, is if you don't have that child. That's it. You got it.

Imagine if at any point in time they do get cancer, it doesn't kill them but leaves them crippled in some way for life, and they tell you "Dad I wish I wasn't born".

What's your answer?

"Come on bucko, I had to BTFO those dumb antinatalists, plus I had to see if you would turn out to be a philosopher. Good thing I'm an R selector and not a K selector right haha. I have 10 more kids that might succeed where you failed. Ain't I smart".

>>16208923
I don't need to be absolutely sure they won't get cancer. Do you not eat because you might choke?

Hell, even if the chance of cancer was 100% that doesn't change shit.

If my kid got cancer and told me he wishes he wasn't born, then I failed as his father for not raising him with the correct moral values.

I would explain to him that if he wasn't born, then that happy memory would not exist. I would explain that for him to not be born, I would have to no procreate and then his siblings wouldn't have been born either.

I'm done here, because you're either trolling, or a retarded hypocrite.

>>16208814
Nobody gives a shit if you do more kids. I mean if one of them got smashed by a truck, you'll be the one crying. Me ? I will never hear anything from it all.

>>16208872
>Just because something bad might happen is not a reason to not do it.

Yeah it is, when the "bad" is happening to someone who didn't consent, and who wouldn't be worse off if you didn't do it.

Like should I just go up to random people and inject them with heroin? Most likely they'll feel good. But they could overdose and die, or get addicted. And they didn't consent to it.

Your argument for doing this is basically, "all my ancestors did it, and plus if you don't do it you're weak, and a failure, and a teen who should kill themselves, and nirvana fallacy, and bla bla bla".

>>16208959
and there we have it. "Even if my child is 100% likely to get cancer and die, I would still have him".

This is legit sociopathic. You have zero empathy, and what makes it worse is it's your own children we're talking about.

>>16208959
Eating is necessary to live. Procreating is not.

>>16208959
>Keeps a blind dog alive for 10 years.
>Would have a child even if they are 100% certain to get cancer and suffer a lot from it.

>need them memories, man. got anymore of them memories.

No other living thing should suffer for a single second because YOU want good memories.

>>16208959
You already failed as a father.

>>16201291
cringe

antinatalist threads are always so retarded because /lit/ doesnt understand shit and just strawmans reddit r/childfree tards. the "why dont you kys" argument that keeps being brought up basically means Mainlander is the endgame of all human knowledge too.

>>16209913
This. People get very personal about their hatred towards a philosophical position, an easy one, that they can barely fathom. "Nonexistence never hurt anyone and existence hurts everyone" -Big Boy Ligotti

>>16210212
because they either want to or already have kids