/lit/ - Literature

>>17834265
Not letting the jews win is all the reason you need to have as many white babies as you can.

>>17834265
Is this really worth a thread? Do you think people make these decisions, having children or not, based on some sort of 'debate' or reason at all?
Obviously you do not think that, no one on 4chan is that retarded, so you are probably just making this thread as a form of bait. Which is really a shitty behaviour, anon.

>>17834265
why should i not have babies though

>>17834265
Just because you can not get laid does not mean the rest of us should give up on life. Have sex.

>>17834277
So, your argument for having children is that the world is shit but it might not be if we shit out kids? Seems kind of circular. Plus all of the moral hurdles that would exist even in the best circumstances still remain.

Why do you keep on making this thread?

>>17834265
If Antinatalist And dead = Good
If Antinatalist And !dead = Self-contradiction
Practice what you preach.

>>17834265
I want, therefore I will. Antinatalism refuted

>>17834265
>irrefutable
Imagine if your parents were antinatalists

Me = Chad. Me make babies = more Chads.

natalists boil down to two catagories,

those who are ignorant of the implications, the stupid ones

those who are apathetic of the implications, the evil ones

I'm very much considering filtering the word "antinatalism" so I don't have to see these retarded threads anymore.
If life sucks that much then kill yourself.
>b-but it could be painful.
Research sodium nitrate.
Antinatalism outside of some personal choice to not have kids is retarded and a logistical nightmare. You'd have to wipe out all life on Earth for a fully realized antinatalist world to be realized. All over a might: that a kid being born in the world *might* lead a bad life. The more sane solution to solving this "problem" is to attempt to minimize the possibility of bad life outcomes through managing genetic and environmental variables, which basically boils down to eugenics and maintaining a healthy, stable society.
>>17834325
You have the moral sensibilities of a five year old.

>>17834265
NO BRO BLEASE NO PLEASE PLESE AAAHHHH I WANT YOU TO REPRODUCE PLEASE STOP BEING ANTI NATALIST AAAAAAAAAAAAA

>>17834315
Woulda been better

>>17834338
about to be literally filtered

>>17834265
It actually is refutable.
Firstly, utilitarian pleasure and suffering dichotomy is just fucking word game and can't be quantified.
Secondly, it seems antinatalists are balancing between different metaethical concepts - sometimes there is a primacy of utilitarian ethics, but in other cases there is primacy of biology.

For example, why can't antinatalist kill himself? Because biology obstructs him. At the same time having children is also a biological drive, but it that case we renounce it due to our ethical system.

>>17834351
Thanks for reminding me: I'm going to filter the word "filtered".

Didnt the bible say go forth and multiply? That’s it antinatalism refuted

>>17834338
a five year old has better moral sensibilities in this matter since theyve had less time coping in stockholm syndrome.

the pain in dying comes from knowing that youre gonna die and the pain of the choice and the knowledge of suffering that it will entail. antinatalists value life, theyre forced to. they just find it better to not have been born. its the most smooth brain argument devoid of any nuance at all but its the only thing a natalist has.

also a kid being born WILL experience dying, one of the worst sufferings, which their parent hasnt experienced yet, so is ignorant of. people judge life to be worthy having not experienced its worst. plus there is no such thing as a good life, only a life that looks good in comparison.

>>17834370
>there is no such thing as a good life
So what are you waiting for?

>>17834370
You more or less shot yourself in the foot.
>people judge life to be worthy having not experienced its worst.
>dying, one of the worst sufferings
Okay so you are judging life based off death, which is supposedly the worst suffering, but you haven't experienced it yet. And you deride others for making value judgments on life when they are ignorant over a thing you yourself are ignorant over.

>>17834375
a guy to come and take me by the hand

>>17834265
Did a single youtube video really manage to convince you to turn against 3.5 billion years of instinctual drive?

Go out and spend time in nature, and eventually you will learn to accept your role within the natural process

>>17834385
not death, dying. people who are dying say its bad.

"Know yourselves- be infertile and let the earth be silent after ye."

>>17834325
got any proof evil exists?

is antinatalism the new apex of cringe to replace fedora atheists? im seeing so many of these bait threads pop up as of late

>>17834388
I made that connection too

>>17834385
plus even if my value jusgement is wrong, there is no consequence. if a natalist makes a wrong value judgement, the kids fucked

For anyone that is actually questioning this and not just memeing-- I am still not sold on antinatalism personally, as sometimes I have aspirations for a kid in the future, but I am leaning towards it. To me, the argument's potency lies less on some universal moral axiom (i.e. kids are bad because potential for suffering) and instead on a personal level: by willingly choosing to bring a child into the world, you are assuming absolute responsibility for everything that happens in that child's life, whether it is directly your fault or not.

You are thus responsible not only for all of his happiness, but also for all of his suffering and also the suffering of the multitudes of his descendants, if there exist any. I'm not sure if that is a responsibility I am comfortable assuming.

>>17834401
It's a chain reaction. These troubled young people learn about certain half-baked idea and start espousing it as their own immediately

>>17834265
>It's another antinatalist thread
Is it really just one guy? Dude I'm not going to no have children just because of your negative utilitarian bullshit that was retroactively refuted by Nietzsche anyway. Also this thread belongs on >>>/his/ because it's not centered around a book or author.

>>17834325
The thing is that there are no implications if you are outside of christian value system.
Even inside christian values pleasure and suffreing and just buzzwords. There is no way to tell which is better or worse.

And I really don't understand why can't an antinatalist kill himself.

>>17834265
>It's another antinatalist thread
Is it really just one guy? Dude I'm not going to no have children just because of your negative utilitarian bullshit that was retroactively refuted by Nietzsche anyway. Also this thread belongs on >>>/his/ because it's not centered around a book or author.

>>17834391
A lot of things are "bad".
The process of dying is still a big mystery in medicine, especially whether or not how physically painful it is (the pain not caused by the illness associated with the dying that is). So you (and everyone else) are still ignorant.
>>17834411
There is a pretty big consequence especially if you are a woman: childless people are markedly unhappy. That's not even going into possible afterlife shit. God possibly could send you to hell for being a fedoralord and irritating anons with your high-schooler tier philosophy. Which given the fact you are 99% probably an atheist, brings up another question: if after life is nothingness, why does it matter if one had lived at all, as memory of that supposedly painful life completely ceases to be?

You are a retard, OP. Get out of here with your inane bullshit. Are you really this stupid? Probably not quite, you're trying to troll or something. Get out.
saged

>>17834370
>plus there is no such thing as a good life
Not for you champ, I'm having a great time

>>17834265
'Irrefutable' does not mean 'correct', anon

>>17834265
>Is it more of a war crime if an IDF sniper eviscerates a pregnant indigenous Palestinian?
you first fren

>>17834265
Everything is refutable except mathematical proofs.

>>17834415
More or less the same for me but also the fact that children are a monument to narcissism and merely having that outlook I think disqualifies me from being a good parent despite the incessant instinctive drives. It feels basal, animal, and the appeal to nature makes no sense considering the assumptions one has to pile on to make it worthwhile.

Wouldn't go around trying to convince anyone to reject natalism though, that's just retarded.

>>17834420
cuz they value living as they are alive. they see it as the lesser of two evils. but if they werent born, they wouldnt have to deal with that.
>>17834427
>illness
.
>fedoralord and irritating anons with your high-schooler tier philosophy
all natalists have is an image to attack.
>you are 99% probably an atheist
loose gnostic
>if after life is nothingness, why does it matter if one had lived at all, as memory of that supposedly painful life completely ceases to be?
the pain is there forever as a moment. or rather, it is bad in the moment. it is the same as saying why live if youre gonna die, why procreate if youre lineage will end.

>>17834439
only in comparison. my life isnt even bad in comparison to others. its the best life i see around me.

>>17834457
>cuz they value living as they are alive. they see it as the lesser of two evils. but if they werent born, they wouldnt have to deal with that.
Why is their life more valuable than the reduction of total suffering in the world? I mean, by staying alive in any society we require resourses which are made form someones suffering. I think suicide is the correct choice.

>>17834265
"non existance"is impossible. Antinatalism assumes the possibitlity of something impossible. Pointless philosophy

>>17834265
Majority of people are simpletons who refuse to acknowledge their own mediocrity and uselessness - procreation and belief in some magical afterlife are common copes to deal with this futility. They'd go insane without several layers of comfy delusions covering them.

I'm offing myself when mom dies, but not before because I'm not blind to the suffering I'd cause her by doing it sooner.

>>17834265
OP is just fishing for yous, as usual
in the off chance he isn't, I'm getting married in a couple of months and will have my first kid quite shortly

>>17834475
If death is = nothingness, then there is no death. Like how it is impossible to go outside if there is nothing outside. Only the inside exists(life).

>>17834265
how is this a /lit/ related thread?

>>17834490
Cessation of consciousness, that's all there is. Any other possibility is just wishful thinking at best, mentally ill delusion at worst. The state of death (nothingness) shouldn't be a scary concept if you understand what it is, but the loss of consciousness once you're aware of it can be hard to accept. Magical pill against death anxiety is the snake oil peddled by religions.

How is non-existence good if it can't be enjoyed? Life is the precursor of everything that could be considered good or positive.

>>17834265
Well we need you to prove it works

>>17834265
cope

>>17834420

Against birth, not against life.

>>17834265
the meaning of any life is to create more life in its own image; any living thing divorced from this meaning suffers. antinatalism in all its forms (homosexuality, monasticism, transsexualism, MGTOW) is the only qualification for mental illness. You might think your beliefs are virtuous somehow, but you believe in the one thing sure to pervert your mind away from your own happiness. Cope and seethe, OP.

What do you mean it's irrefutable though, are you implying it's simply logical?

There's nothing "logical" about not believing life has intrinsic value. That's just simply a sentiment.

>>17834415
Sensible take. In a way it reminds me of arguments against pet ownership. Not that I am against pet ownership, but I think a moral person should consider a multitude of perspectives. By keeping a pet you're taking away its freedom, some natural drives and experiences. Some pet owners decide to neuter their little furry loved ones to make it easier for all involved supposedly, but in the end you're robbing a being of its sexuality. Some force their pets to breed against their will. I'm not applying human standards to animals. Just an appeal to consider the gravitas of a choice as simple as owning pets.
Maybe parents should give more thought about producing offspring. A child is an immense responsibility. Sometimes I regret having to endure this pain - a pain originating in knowing that you'll some day die and so will everyone you love. Conscious beings shouldn't have to deal with that. Now add all the other factors that could make a young life, or really any life, miserable. Parents need to be equipped to instill an unwavering sense of purpose and happiness in their children. They need to teach their children how to cope and how to make it and provide the means for success.

>>17834449
>narcissim
It's a bad feel when you realize you were brought into this world to make your parents happy because now THEY have a purpose and can sign off in bliss. And THEY cannot comprehend the depths of the despair they inflict, THEY reject all responsibility.

>>17834265
Thank God they live only for one generation. :)

I don't think anti-natalists argue in good faith. If it's morally bad to bring people into existence because of suffering, then by logical necessity this means continuing to live is also bad because of the same actual or potential suffering, which means anti-natalism is at best a suicidal ideology, and at worst a genocidal one.

Somehow antinatalism makes sense when you're sad and doesn't when you're happy.

>>17834687
It's tied to your self esteem. You shouldn't and probably won't be having any children if you don't have at least a basic sense of self value and intrinsic worth.

>>17834370
I've gone through the worst and judged it worth living
Others have gone through the worst and judged it worth living
You can't say the worst suffering is death when you're too much of a pussy to find out.
Enlighten yourself.

>>17834500
>The state of death (nothingness) shouldn't be a scary concept if you understand what it is
That's what he's saying, it's literally impossible to understand it, because it doesn't exist. It is nil, ergo it can't be experienced, ergo experience can only be experienced. You are the mentally ill retard here if you can't understand these basic concepts. You basic want to believe the void is an eternal bliss in order to justify anti-natalism, which simply cannot exist because it violates the law of non-contradiction.
>>17834669
Congrats, you figured out that anti-natalism is a meme philosophy. My advice is never take philosophical imperatives seriously from anyone who doesn't follow the same imperatives under the same conditions. It's the same reason no one takes philosophies which advocate unconditional, immediate suicide seriously. It contradicts itself by even existing.

antinatalism is self destructive, it frees up more resources for the offspring of those who believe in pumping out as many kids as possible meaning their genes will continue to the next generation who will also believe in shitting out kids, contrary to this argument then the only way forward is to have kids so that over the long term those who have children irresponsibly will be outcompeted

Why do people read Ligotti and not understand his point is that you need to be selfish to persist in this world, if you want to hold onto your sanity?

Antinatalism has never been the point of nihilists, the point has been to understand that human morality is separate from any kind of universal morality.

>>17834597
This seems arbitrary.
we are talking here about suffering. >>17834464

>>17834705
>You basic want to believe the void is an eternal bliss
Christcucked projection, nothing in my post suggests eternity or bliss. Cessation of consciousness is such terrifying idea to you that you simply refuse to accept it. In the simplest layman terms which should come through to you, it's equal to the state before you were born and gained awareness. There was no (You) for billions of years and won't be anything of it for billions of years to come.

>>17834740
>nothing in my post suggests eternity or bliss
Yes it does, that is the implicit assumption made by every anti-natalist. It has nothing to do with Christianity, and more to do with the Buddhist idea of a total lack of pleasure and pain as bliss, or nirvana. You will never admit it, but it is extremely obvious to anyone who looks just a single layer behind the facade you retards put up of "non-experience is better than experience", when the former quite simply does not and cannot exist per the arguments I just gave.
There is simply no rational argument you can make to refute what I've just stated. You are the irrational one here by implicitly claiming that non-experience can be experienced. Experience is all that is possible. You were also trying to claim that it is possible to understand nothing, which is equally as irrational and impossible.
>it's equal to the state before you were born and gained awareness.
Can you remember the times you've been black out drunk and totally lost your memories? How can you be sure the time prior to being born wasn't a totally separate existential condition, which you lost all of your memories of just like when you were drunk? The answer is you cannot, and if you understood the arguments I made, you'd be quite sure that experience, what Buddhists call the "continuation of consciousness", is the only certain thing for any of us. Maybe your next existence will be a cockroach or rat, it's impossible to say, the only certain thing is continuation.

>>17834705
I'm honestly baffled how you and most of the anons ITT managed to fundamentally mischaracterize such a basic concept. I'd hate to play devil's advocate here but this level of discussion where half the posts are some form of
>kys
is something I'd expect of /pol/ or /tv/ where philosophy is not common occurrence. It's juvenile schadenfreude extraction, shit flinging. You fail to grasp the very thing you're arguing against just as OP is failing to validate and reconcile their existential dread with any meaningful thoughtform.

The Shakers were an American antinatalist Christian group from the 1800s.

look where they all are now

>>17834773
this>>17834464

>>17834774
Literally who?

>>17834770
Bunch of religious fantasies and copes, just with a buddhist flavour instead of christcuck one. Your entire argument relies on imagination, hoping that there was something in the nothingness before your consciousness.

>>17834793
So this is the power of "rational" anti-natalism.

>>17834265
Antinatalism assumes the possibility of something impossible(non existance). It is better to assume the unlikely(life without suffering)rather than the impossible. Useless philosophy

>>17834797
>buddha slobs trying to front on antibabies
get the popcorn boys we have a midget fight

>>17834773
You still haven't given a single argument against me. You are shitflinging just like the rest of them as far as I'm concerned. Please refute what I just stated if you're actually here to argue in good faith, otherwise I will proceed to ignore you.

>>17834797
You've offered no alternative other than fantasy.

>>17834784
exactly

>>17834812
I'm not a Buddhist. I stated non-existence is impossible, which is contrary to Buddhist doctrine. Please try to engage your critical faculties before calling others midgets.

>>17834818
>rational argument is fantasy

>>17834820
>Please try to engage your critical faculties before calling others midgets.
dohhh this one is cranky
midget fight MIDGET FIGHT MIDGET FIGHT

>>17834828
>postmortal continuation of consciousness
>rational

>>17834609
>the meaning of any life is to create more life in its own image

?

>>17834834
Yes, which you would understand if you read the arguments I gave. Refusing to read is not an argument, nor is it rational. I literally cannot help you if you refuse to read.

>>17834815
>You are shitflinging just like the rest of them as far as I'm concerned.
Naturally. You started off this whole discussion in bad faith, assuming you're OP, and you're enabling this shit fest.
If you are a self described anti-natalist then you misunderstand your own philosophy in trying to compete in this incredibly retarded way of "debate me bro" and this needless hostility in response to other shit flingers. You are clearly not content with your newly discovered truths.

>>17834849
I am not OP nor an anti-natalist, I am the person you responded to. I don't really understand what your point is with respect to me

>>17834843
The denial of objective reality outside your perception is simple arrogance, not an argument.
>can't experience non-existence therefore non-existence non-existing
>it's rational to expect to respawn as a cockroach because that's rational existence based on experience