/lit/ - Literature

>>16234132
Why would an anitnatalist write fiction? If anyone wrote antinatalist fiction it would be to make fun of antinatalist. You can't be antinatalist and write fiction. Writing fiction presupposed you want an audience, and that you want to be remembered. This suggests you want people to be born.

>>16234132
>Writing fiction presupposed you want an audience
Dumb and wrong.

>>16234203
>>16234304
Not wanting any more people to be born does not mean you don't want to have fun and try to be famous in your lifetime.

>>16234203
This is the only type of "argument" ever utilized against antinatalism. If functions like this:

1. If you do (or do not do) X, the logical conclusion of this action (or lack of action) is that you consider life to be worth living
2. The antinatalist I am arguing with fits the above description, therefore said antinatalist is not really an antinatalist
3. Ergo antinatalism is refuted

>>16234374
Antinatalism is retarded. It doesn't need to be refuted because it is founded on the fallacy that all humans will find life unbearable compared to never being born. It literally refutes itself.

>>16234563
>Antinatalism is retarded. It doesn't need to be refuted
Now that's the intellectual rigor I've come to expect from our natalist posters.
>it is founded on the fallacy that all humans will find life unbearable compared to never being born
Wrong, as usual.

>>16234563
Argument type 2:
1. Antinatalism posits X. It does not actually posit this but I say that it does
2. X is wrong because it's "dumb"
3. Ergo antinatalism is refuted

Argument type 2B:
1. Antinatalism itself is "dumb" therefore I don't need to refute it.

>>16234132
Anything by Thomas Bernhard
Poetry of Al-Ma'arri, Leopardi and Michelstaedter.

Antinatalism as an ideology is self refuting. If there is some single thing that makes it better to live than to kill yourself, such as spreading antinatalism, then life isn't so bad that people shouldn't breed.

>>16234610
This fits category 1: >>16234374
Your post is a universalized no-true-scotsman fallacy. Try again.

>>16234610
As such, I need only present one antinatalist that killed himself and your "argument" is refuted, so I give you the philosopher Philipp Mainlander.

>>16234610
>>16234634
Michelstaedter and Albert Caraco too

>>16234203
>>16234563
>>16234610
It's possible to construct arguments dealing with the ideas that antinatalism actually holds, you know. I don't find any of it convincing as most attempts I have seen boil down to a sort of semantic or logical obfuscation of fact, but the fact remains that it is possible. Yet here you are, spouting the same vacuous nonsense in thread after thread. Does antinatalism offend you to such a degree that the function of your rational faculties is temporarily suspended, or are you just stupid?

>>16234625
The No-Trust Scotsman fallacy is only a fallacy if there isn't a standard to judge against. To say otherwise is to throw out the entire idea of conceptuality and language as a whole.

>>16234634
>>16234649
Indeed, I would accept them as antinatalists. They have successfully demonstrated antinatalist philosophy. But >>16234625 is not, as he does not meet the definition of antinatalism.

>>16234694
It doesn't matter whether someone lives up to some criteria or not. That has no bearing on the truth of falsity of what they are saying. That is what I meant by saying you are "universalizing" it. You take a failure to meet some supposed criteria as evidence of falsity, when it means no such thing. Further, since you admit that there are those who have met your criteria, it means that you need to actually deal with the argument itself rather than its proponents, you know? It is now a valid viewpoint.

I've yet to see any evidence that antinatalism is anything more than depressed people who mistakenly assume that their specific medical condition is universal human experience.

>>16234753
Feel free to read a book on the subject then.

>>16234610
>>16234694
To quote an anon from the archive on the pain of death/suicide.

>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".

>>16234721
If an ideology isn't good enough for its supporters to engage in, then yes, it certainly is a criterion for its truth or falsehood. More to the point, it's a simple demonstration that antinatalists agree that life is indeed worth living, and as such childbearing is not inherently immoral.

It sounds to me like you're just upset that this criticism rings true. Have you considered that the reason that this comes up in every antinatalism thread is because it's a correct criticism, antinatalism is a foolish ideology, and that you've been hoodwinked into believing in a meme?

>>16234132
antinatalist praxis is suicide and self-sterilisation

>>16234761
I've read The Conspiracy Against Life, Better Never To Have Been, and a bit of Mainländer, all of which thoroughly confirmed my suspicion.

>>16234769
The problem, anon, is that you have yourself admitted that it *is* good enough, because you have accepted that there are "proper" adherents. So deal with their ideas. I know why won't, of course. It's because you're incapable of doing so. But I would implore you just the same.

>>16234766
If the pain of suicide is greater than the pain of continued existence then anti-natalism is also refuted as this demonstrates that the pain of existence is not great enough to warrant non-existence.

If you don't like existential dread, pick up a religion. Don't like Christianity? Go take up Buddhism or Hinduism. No one is forcing you to be a Liberal (spiritually, we are all indeed physically being forced to be Liberals).

>>16234787
>Just believe a religion bro
This is your brain on natalist consumerism.

>>16234786
I have dealt with it. Antinatalists demonstrate that they think life is worth living. Therefore, the very advocates of the philosophy say it's not worth doing. That is engagement. I already explained this in >>16234769.

>>16234787
>If the pain of suicide is greater than the pain of continued existence then anti-natalism is also refuted as this demonstrates that the pain of existence is not great enough to warrant non-existence.
You are equating the act of suicide with non-existence itself. They are not the same thing. Further antinatalism is against putting people into this situation, in which the only way out is to engage is suicide.

>>16234787
Work on your reading comprehension subhuman

>>16234792
You're not capable of rational thought are you? If your argument is that "antinatalists don't kill themselves, so they think life is worth living" but you accept that there are antinatalists who did kill themselves, then your argument is null. It's nothing more than a rhetorical flourish that you use to excuse yourself from dealing with the ones who did kill themselves.

>>16234688
Why are you offended that someone doesn't respect your shitty, incel, "wah wah wah me ugly life no fair" cope?

>>16234931
>I am not capable of refuting antinatalism.
I knew that already, anon.

>>16234931
>incel
Antinatalists aren't incels.
Incels are failed normalfaggots who want to get married and have kids.

>>16234951
Neither are you capable of defining its position. Because the multiple times that people have defined AND refuted it in thread, you've lied by creating a strawman of your critics saying they don't understand antinatalism. Why don't you help us all out by defining antinatalism. Then we can all join hands and BTFO you and your shit cope eternally? Ok fuckwad?

>>16234972
If you want to properly understand antinatalist position then start by reading The Conspiracy Against the Human Race
This >>16234766 archive anon did a pretty great job of introducing some core antinatalist ideas

>>16234972
>Because the multiple times that people have defined AND refuted it in thread
Lol. Putting aside your behavior, which shows you have no interest in legitimately discussing the topic, if you actually believe that anyone in this thread has refuted antinatalism then there's no point discussing it with you.

>>16234766
>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.
This is a good post.

>>16234608
Thank you for making the only post in this thread that actually answered the OP question.

>>16234987
Let me sum up th blog post that someonr posted as an example of antinatalist thought
>I DIDNT CONSENT TO BEING BORN!
>I FEAR DEATH!
>ANYONE WHO CLAIMS NOT TO FEAR DEATH OR WHO FOCUSES ON THE HAPPINESS IN THEIR LIFE IS JUST COPING ABOUT THEIR FEAR OF DEATH. BECAUSE I PERSONALLY FEAR DEATH AGAIN LET ME STATE THAT THIS IS ALL BASED ON MY PERSONAL ANECDOTAL EXPERIENCE WHICH I AM TRYING TO APPLY TO THE ENTIRE HUMAN POPULATION IN GENERAL IN MY PERSONAL EXPERIENCE SINCE DEATH IS INEVITABLE I WOULD RATHER NOT EXPERIENCE LIFE THIS IS JUST ME PERSONALLY SPEAKING AND IF YOU PERSONALLY FOCUS ON HAPPINESS AND ENJOY PARTS OF LIFE OR BELIEVE LIFE IS WORTH LIVING ESPECIALLY JUST FOR CERTAIN MOMENTS THEN I AM TELLING YOU THAT YOUR PERSONAL OPINION IS WRONG AND YOU ARE COPING BECAUSE PERSONALLY I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT AGAIN THIS ALL ABOUT ME EXTRAPOLATING MY NAIVE THOUGHTS TO THE ENTIRETY OF HUMANITY AND HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT LIFE
>Therefore I have rigourously proven being born is immoral. Thank you for reading my diary grandma!

>>16235044
It's immoral because it forces people into this situation, the inescapable prison of death. You may end up being content with it, or you may not. The possibility that a child may end up being the latter case is justification to not give birth to them.

>>16235064
Also, to preemptively reply to:
>Then a person being content with it is justification to give birth to them.
Negative. You are imposing a situation of objective suffering upon someone. Believing some philosophical coping methodology does not negate the object aspect of life, that to live is to suffer and that to be born is to be condemned to pain and death. It is an objectively negative phenomenon.

>>16235064
>It's immoral because it forces people into this situation
forces whom? without talking about the person themselves, who is forced? talking about some kind of coercion presupposes the existence of the coerced. without their existence, how can you talk about them at all? you seem to think that when people aren't born, they exist in a state free from coercion, which they're taken from when they are born. but that's obviously wrong, because they don't exist before they are born, so to say being born coerces them into living is an absurdity - there's nothing to speak of that isn't coerced, so why complain about it? the only things that aren't coerced can't be spoken of, because they don't exist
hopefully you'll realize how dumb this all is when you get older

>>16235127
This is actually what I was talking about here >>16234688, a logical obfuscation of fact. You place the issue into a logical category which renders it such that it cannot be discussed at all. The issue, of course, remains, as this does not address it in any way. It just papers over it.

>>16235127
>you seem to think that when people aren't born, they exist in a state free from coercion, which they're taken from when they are born.
They exist as potentialities. From "The Last Feast of Harlequin":
>They were singing to the "unborn in paradise," to the "pure unlived lives."

>>16235147
i think it's kind of fundamental that it makes no sense to speak about coercion when the thing being coerced is not real
but at heart the real reason i think this is all ridiculous is because i don't think coercion is wrong in any way and i think that everything can, should, and must be used for the benefit of the living, because fundamentally we matter and they don't
if life is slavery then it is okay to enslave people, if life is suffering then it is okay to make people suffer, if life is coercion then it is okay to coerce. the dead and the not-yet-living have no rights and no means to resist, so they should be subjugated by those that do. and even people who are alive and do have the means to resist but are in a different camp than me have no rights - if i would think nothing of killing a leftist or a nigger or a jew, why would i give any thought at all to people who aren't even alive?
it's not only okay to enslave the not-yet-living for the service of the living, it should be done to the greatest extent physically possible. we should make them in vats, in factories, we should clone people, we should practice eugenics and gene modification to shape the whole of their very lives to our purposes, and they should thank us for the opportunity to partake in life and all its suffering and joy. their suffering means nothing in the face of the purpose for which they were plucked from the void, because suffering only has any meaning at all in relation to the ends of the living. things that can't suffer do not even deserve to have terms in our moral calculus, they should not even be considered with respect to right or wrong

>>16235236
This is the certainly the logical conclusion of natalism. I'll give you that at least.

>>16235064
You can't consent to being born. You can't use this as a reason for it being immoral.

>>16235351
That's actually the reason it's immoral.

>>16235086
You can't prove that life is objectively suffering. ONCE AGAIN, nearly all of antinatalist thought stems from fallacies such as this.

>>16235351
trying to explain why antinatalists are wrong by saying "it's not coercion, it's not slavery, blah blah consent" is silly
the real problem with them is that coercion, slavery, and being unable to consent to things are not wrong or at the very least only have meaning in relation to people that already exist
once you give them a seat at the table, you've already lost

>>16235362
All life undergoes death. That demonstrates it.

Christopher Slatsky has a novella about an antinatalist cult in his second (and so far latest) book.

>>16235376
>once you give them a seat at the table, you've already lost
Indeed, if you actually consider what you're going to be causing by bringing a child into the world, the only conclusion is to be an antinatalist.

>>16235380
also Philip Larkin kinda wrote a poem about it

This Be The Verse

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another’s throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don’t have any kids yourself.

>>16235384
or to stop worrying about dumb things like consent and and coercion
but you don't want to do that, because this isn't really about being right - you're just unhappy and depressed and have latched on to an ideological position that affirms and supports that
there's literally nothing wrong with making other people suffer for your own gain, in fact, it's inevitable, so stop worrying about it

>>16235401
>Having children is okay, so everything is permitted.
This should be new natalist motto.

>>16235415
yes, indeed everything is permitted for the purposes of the living - as a whole. within that, on an individual level, of course that doesn't apply - laws and such are still needed to maintain order. but this, too, is for the benefit of the living, as a whole. the entire structure as a whole has absolutely no rules or higher authority it answers to, except god, and physical necessity
so for the good of the many, it's acceptable to violate the autonomy of the individual, including coercing them and enslaving them, regardless of their ability to consent
there, i have just solved antinatalism, you are now permitted to cheer up and relax a bit

>>16235439
You've only given me more reason to think that continuing human existence is a bad thing.

>>16235378
Once again this assumes death outweight what happens in life. Can't be proven. Your incel cope is written in sand just before high tide rolls in.

>>16235378
When you die you cease to exist. The only suffering death causes is any physical pain associated with it. This hardly is enough to warrant not being born. This is the ONLY objective suffering which comes from death. All other suffering is subjective because it is created by anxiety about ceasing to exist. So no, you can't say that objectively life is suffering being that is patently false.

>>16235469
>>16235495
I stated that "to live is to suffer" which means that all life undergoes suffering. I was asked to prove this, and I did, by stating that all life undergoes death. You're dealing with some other subject.

>>16235495
>You can't say that life is suffering because the suffering that you undergo doesn't count because I said so
Epic natalist logic as usual.

>>16234688
I've made plenty of arguments against various forms of antinatalism, but the thing is, there's really no point in arguing against antinatalists because 99% of them are already dogmatically committed to their philosophy and refuse to even acknowledge the inconsistencies pointed out, or else are unwilling or incapable of recognizing them as such.
The only reason to engage with antinatalism is to prevent any more people from being fooled into actually thinking it's anything more than a poor attempt at rationalizing the antinatalists' feelings that life sucks. As such, I couldn't give less of a shit whether or not my arguments actually manage to convine any antinatalists.

>>16235543
And antinatalists are the exact opposite. What have you proven?

>>16235546
It's quite obvious that the majority of natalists are either uninterested or incapable of any legitimate discussion, but it's rare for one of you to actually admit it, so this post is a welcome sight.

>>16234132
You people arguing about what is the "right thing to do". i dont care if my kids will hate me and think im "immoral" for bringing them into this world, because i brought them into this world to satisfy my physical urge to coom inside bagina, and i intend to continue multiplying until i die, my bloodline shall rule the universe

>>16235564
>the exact opposite
In what way? By saying that the suffering humans undergo (which you acknowledge exists) is actually suffering that they undergo? Lol.

>>16235533
No you still haven't shown that objectively life equates to suffering. The presence of suffering in life does not mean life is suffering. You're a pseud who can't interpret language.

>>16235570
Read>>16235572 Antinatalists seem to conflate the presence of suffering in life to mean that life IS suffering.

>>16235572
>>16235577
Life does equate to suffering. Every single urge you have on a daily basis is suffering. Feeling hunger, thirst, sexual desire, all of this is suffering. The helplessness and inexperience of youth, the degradation of aging. Every instance of physical pain or discomfort you feel throughout your lifetime; every instance of mental strain, lack of understanding, incongruity. Life is a continual stream of suffering. There is not much that is more obvious than this.

>>16234203
>If a person in labor camp doesn't kill himself it means it's worth being sent to the labor camp.
>This suggests that the prisoner wants more people to be sent to the labor camp.

>>16235625
Good thing life isn't inherently a labor camp

>>16235646
It is. Every single thing that you do in your life is labor. Your body generally uses suffering to induce labor, such as hunger pains, the need to defecate or urinate.

>>16235659
You call that labor? I manage them pretty easily. Maybe you should see a doctor

>>16235566
I've tried to hold such discussions many times but it's never proven worthwhile, at least from the point of view of trying to convince them they're wrong.
If I point out the logical problems behind the claim that nonexistence is better than existence, I get ignored. If I point out that suffering is a subjective reaction, not an objective fact (as other posters here have tried to point out in this thread), I get ignored. If I point out that most forms of antinatalism imply that death is good and we should all kill ourselves while taking as many people with us as possible, I get ignored.

The thing about antinatalism is that it is a philosophy that is fundamentally rooted in the personal feeling that life sucks; a feeling which is then clothed in extremely rudimentary logical arguments and presented as universal, objective, unbiased fact because natinatalists are incapable of distinguishing between the two.
As a worldview, antinatalism is valid only for those people who share those feelings in which its rooted, and for no one else.
If you, personally, are an antinatalist, that is fine. What is not fine is to pretend that your philosophy has a claim to rationality that it so patently lacks.

>>16234132
painless_suicide_methods.pdf
how_to_self-castrate.pdf

Even if all sentient life desisted from procreation and completely died off, you would eventually have sentient life again, evidenced by our own existence. The time span between the last sentient life and the first new sentience life is naught, for however long that may take to pass it will be as if a momentary instant between last and first, for no one will be alive to experience it until they are once again. It's thus a losing battle even if you could successfully enact it. Subjective experience seems like it's destined to happen with enough space and time, and this paradoxically suggests the natalist position is equally flawed, as the preservation of sentient life is systemic to our reality regardless of our actions

>>16235941
I think you might be right, but if on an individual level you don't want to go around causing unnecessary harm this follows similar ethical standards. The choice is whether to add to suffering or not.

>tfw

>>16236133
stop posting this thot

>>16235941
>natalism and antinatalism are both redundant next to nihilism
based

Hi fellow book lovers!

Recently, I've been speaking to a lot of friends and they all share the same sentiment.
The process of selling or giving away books online is not as simple and straightforward as it should be.
As a result, I created a questionnaire to help us readers and I was wondering if you could spare 2 minutes of your time to fill it.
The purpose of this questionnaire is to evaluate how easy and convenient it is for other book readers to sell/give away books.
The questionnaire is completely anonymous and also covers those not looking to sell books.

Please share and leave feedback if you can.
Thank you in advance.
Brody, a fellow book lover

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSdsXW-JszybJzSEteuoTpt2x-e8WggZ1arWBil1do66DSns-w/viewform?usp=sf_link

>>16234590
>Argument type 2:
>proceeds to describe a basic "strawman" or "ad hominem" fallacy, or just "name calling" and "misrepresentation", but in the most pretentious cringy way possible

Yeah, that's what I except from an antinatalist.
Also, no, this post isn't an argument against antinatalism. It is an argument that you are a moron and an asshat.

>>16234132
I have to question to ask all antinatalists:

You guys are Christians, right? I mean, wouldn't it be so silly to believe that life is so objectively bad that you can take a moral stand against all childbirth if you were not a believer in some universal and objective, moral condemnation of mankind? And wouldn't it just be so, so silly if you believed this moral and universal condemnation of life came from the subjective mind of a 20-something human being, rather than an all-knowing magician-philosopher from outside of space and time who would be capable of making such universal and objective moral claims?

Yeah, stupid question, I know. Of course you guys are Christians.

>>16236735
>it's another episode of muh divine command theory
get a new shtick, this one got old a year ago

>>16236746
Ok, so... How do you justify your morality?
Antinatilism judges life by the rules of the living, then judges death by the rules of the living as well.
Not only that, but many antinatalists judge all lives by the life of one.
How do you justify this?

>>16234132

>>16236859
I'm not an antinatalist, I hate them, actually. I'm just tired of you illiterate retards shitting up every thread because you think a late 20th century burger philosophical theory is the only grounding of morality ever invented.

as i understand it after a quick google search, antinatalism sees giving birth as morally bad because life begets suffering.
im unclear on a few points. does it suggest that one should seek to die early to stop ones own suffering? if someone enjoys their life, does it assume that that is incorrect or wrong? is it only sentient beings who shouldn't reproduce, or all living things?
genuinely curious, if there are any antinatalists who wouldn't mind explaining some of the finer points id appreciate it

>>16236916
This quote is the essence of antinatalism(If you want to properly understand the philosophy then read The Conspiracy Against the Human Race and Better Never to Have Been)
>It is curious that while good people go to great lengths to spare their children from suffering, few of them seem to notice that the one (and only) guaranteed way to prevent all the suffering of their children is not to bring those children into existence in the first place.
David Benatar

It's a personal choice which only deal with the question of procreation and it argues against it.

>>16235613
>>16235659
This anon has never had sex. You're bitter. Do the anitnatalist dance and jig off the nearest tall building.

>>16236914
If your moral condemnation of others is based on nothing but a feeling, then I don't have to entertain it. All my life I've heard atheists try to justify their morality, and all of it sounds like bullshit.
So please, Mr. Literate, would you educate me on a solid ground for morality, apart from theology?

>>16237025
Literally answered none of his questions. This further proves that when faced with criticisms, antinatalists ignore it and keep squawking about how birth is immoral without every rigorously showing why.

>>16237077
>spoonfeed me please
"No!"

>>16236916
Not an antinatalist, but I'd like to offer a buddhistic twist: committing suicide will only make you live your cycle again, while not having children will spare you the pain of seeing them suffer the cycle.

>>16237025
>That quote
Sounds like a quitter.
Seriously, that sounds so pathetic. It's saying life is never worth anything, and despite this nihilism, the conclusion is moralistic: that we should not create life, which is to say that a negative stance is appropriate for a neutral condition. Now, if life were a negative condition, well, then it is only negative by the standards of one life, but not by any external evaluation since such a thing would lead to a neutral view of life.

Only a human could be this silly. Antinatalism is anyways a neurotic, melancholy-inspired, feminine idea.

>>16237114
according to busshism, are children born as newly created souls? if not wouldn't they already be a part of the cycle and be born to someone/something else in time?

>>16237113
The only reason people make this kind of post is because they too don't know how to define the concept being discussed. If you were so confident your position is right, then surely by explaining it no could refute you.

>>16237113
>no argument
As expected.

>>16237114
I recall the buddhistic position to be natalist, since reincarnating as a human is seen as an extra-special opportunity to receive the wisdom of the Buddha and be freed from the cycle.

>>16237121
Retard

>>16237077
>a solid ground for morality, apart from theology
are you looking for an objective morality outside of theism, or just a compelling reason to follow a moral code in the absence of objectivity?

>>16237125
Anon, I'm not advocating any kind of moral position. I'm advocating against the existence of the Borg horde of zoomers like (you) who use vulgarized divine command theory in the form of "BUT HOW DO YOU MORALITY IF NO GOD" as le epic intellectual gotcha catchphrase. Now if you weren't ignorant, intellectually dishonest, or both, you'd know that there are, in fact, a billion other theories that attempt to ground or justify morality, contained in the vast corpuses of literature that span the entirety of western and non western philisophical traditions, which are waiting for you to read them, whenever you muster the necessary willpower needed for you to stop acting like a philistine on an italian pizzamaking forum.

>>16237240
You have entirely misunderstood my argument.
I have never claimed, and if I have please show me, but I have never claimed that there are not other theories for moralities apart from theological ones.
My argument is that they are bullshit. People talk about them all the time. Yes, I know they exist in many forms. Yes, I have read about them.
They suck. I reject them.

That is my argument, so please stop acting like I don't know about these things.

>>16237168
I am looking for a reason to follow any moral code. Most of what I see (outside of theology, religion, and the like) is either A: "My animal brain invented some mental gymnastics to justify my animal behavior" or B: "Morality feels warm and fuzzy and good people are moral". Yes, I know about Kant and Stuart Mill and such, and I think that is all animal mental gymnastics. I simply reject it.

>>16236916
>does it suggest that one should seek to die early to stop ones own suffering?
No, that's pro-mortalism. Those who are already alive may have an interest in continuing to survive, but would not be ethically justified in making that choice for others.
>if someone enjoys their life, does it assume that that is incorrect or wrong?
No, whoever enjoys life doesn't affect anti-natalism because those who enjoy it can never guarantee that their children will too, they would be making a choice for someone else and gambling with their life at the same time.
>is it only sentient beings who shouldn't reproduce, or all living things?
I don't think it's addressed to squirrels.

>>16234132
"The text of the Encyclopedia said: “For one of those Gnostics, the visible universe was an illusion or (more precisely) a sophistry. Mirrors and fatherhood are abominable because they multiply and spread it."

>>16237448
have you guessed it? anyway, it's 'Tlön, Uqbar, Orbis Tertius' by Jorge Luis Borges

>>16236916
>does it suggest that one should seek to die early to stop ones own suffering?
Such a conclusion is implicit in most forms of antinatalism, but good luck getting antinatalists to admit that.
> if someone enjoys their life, does it assume that that is incorrect or wrong?
Morally wrong, no, but factually wrong, yes. Antinatalists more-or-less argue that the only objectively correct way you can feel about life (paradoxical as that is) is that it sucks. People who feel good about life are, according to antinatalists, just lying to themselves.

>>16234132
>Anyone know of any antinatalist fiction?

Frank Bunker Gilbreth Jr. & Ernestine Gilbreth Carey, Cheaper by the Dozen

Arguing for antinatalism through the asymetry argument is pretty eh and can be refuted. Antinatalism has to be paired with pessimism to reach its full logical conclusion

tfw philisophical optimist

Feels good man

>>16234132
I used to be the biggest antinatalist in the world. I would wear a shirt I made which said "birth is the beginning of damnation". All I can tell you is, I was saved from this poison and the only cure is Christian Fideism brought about by personal mystical revelation. So, start praying, Fren!

>Inb4 Jesus and Paul support antinatalism (already went down that road)

>>16237123
>>16237135
I'm just offering a twist: Buddhism is not antinatalist, but one could decide that even if being born as a human is good, he doesn't need to be attached to more people.

>>16239325
Good job anon

>>16235064
you can't 'force' someone to be alive lmaoo
do you even power dynamics, retardo

>>16235184
potentiality is not existence

Natalists are absolutely btfo and vivisected by refutation itt