/lit/ - Literature

This is one autist making all these threads btw

your morality is based off Christianity, but you don’t realize it also commands you to reproduce. If you want to be an atheist atleast become a nietzche fag who loves violence and not this gay middle ground

>>21772655
rape is the only way I'll ever procreate so...

>>21772655
You are free to kill yourself at anytime, not trying to be mean here, I'm just saying.

>if I spam one more thread about this middle school tier essay maybe Tyrone will unlock the cage

KILL YOURSELF NIGHER SPAMMER

you will never be a woman

>>21772676
>your morality is based off Christianity, but you don’t realize it also commands you to reproduce.
Why, because of a cherrypicked line in the OT?

>>21772687
>rape is okay because if they dislike living with the trauma they can kill themselves

>>21772655
>It is unlikely that many people will take to heart the conclusion that coming into existence is always a harm. It is even less likely that many people will stop having children. By contrast, it is quite likely that my views either will be ignored or will be dismissed. As this response will account for a great deal of suffering between now and the demise of humanity, it cannot plausibly be thought of as philanthropic. That is not to say that it is motivated by any malice towards humans, but it does result from a self-deceptive indifference to the harm of coming into existence.
>Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence (2006) p.225
Really sad

>>21772715
It’s literally the first command of God to man, it’s not like there’s a lot of context, it’s 28 verses in

>>21772655
Honey, all intercourse with men is rape.

>>21772733
I’m trans btw

>>21772741
Cope

>>21772757
You worship Satan and rape children

kill yourself you’re ruining this fucking board with these threads about this Jew book about convincing men to have homosexual sex

>>21772734
The go forth and multiply line uttered to the first created humans doesn't mean that this is aimed to all humans at all times, especially after the coming of Christ. The OT is there for context, not in order to make Christians continue to act like Jews. They don't keep kosher and circumcise either for example.

>>21772760
If people didn't have children. They could not even be raped or condemned to be burned for eternity for not following the orders of a magical Entity.

>>21772763
Well your Talmud says that Christians are animals, die out subvert

>>21772771
>magical
You practice witchcraft, which god hates and you’ll go to hell if you keep doing it

Someone has to post it.

you think man can create paradise (satanism)

>>21772772
>your
I'm not Jewish desu. Although the OT also has antinatalist verses as well.

>>21772783
tripfags like you don’t look like that, also you’re incapable of saying “Yes” because you have the spirit of rebellion (satanism)

>>21772788
You are you worship the devil so you’re Jewish, you hate Jesus Christ and piss on his body and blood in the form of the holy communion and you also defecate on it

>>21772783
I appreciate the consistency at least. Nobody else in the thread so far has engaged with the argument.

>>21772794
you argue with words, I argue in general ideas expressed to the truly intelligent through to the fucking idiots who inhabit this board as random words (they’re not random, you’re just demonically fucking sexed)

>>21772793
The reading of the Gospels makes us discover a Christ fiercely hostile to the biological family and even more to reproduction. In the wake of Christ, who remained childfree while urging us to become eunuchs for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, the early Church fathers will also glorify perpetual virginity and disparage carnal fertility. Saint Augustine even wished that everyone would refrain from procreating so that the end of the world would be hastened! The original Christianity was indeed an antinatalism.

>>21772803
I sense evil in this post, the patterns of the word, kill yourself demon

>>21772808
>inb4 the glories make a post that makes me go kill myself

>>21772794
Do you want me to seriously argue against it? I’m almost done writing something, if you want after I’m done writing I can present argument in opposition to OP and in opposition to pessimism in general, and in some degree in opposition to benatar in specific.

>>21772808
Demons love procreation since it populates hell.

Why do you love the world and the maker not you hate nothing the thing will come I die you aghhjhh

>>21772655
>>21772760
Nothing happens without God's consent. If God desires child rape, please be assured that it will happen.

>>21772823
You love penis, stop that. I CHOOSE IGNORANCE

>arguing for the rights of future hypothetical people
you have to exist first in order to be a person :)

>>21772833
I cease to exist

>>21772821
Pessimism and Benatars general arguments are pretty easily dismissed imo, I think the consent approach to antinatalism is interesting though since it is basically liberalism taken to its logical conclusion and avoids mopey sentimentalism. You don't have to write an essay on my behalf though, but if there is a quickly pointed out inconsistently there that I'm not seeing I'd be curious.

>>21772655
Those who profess anti-natalist beliefs are more likely to suffer from personality disorders and mental illness.

>>21772833
So if you were to put a nuke under a city and put the timer to 200 years, would it be alright since you're only targeting hypothetical people?

>>21772856
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact; it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).

>>21772856
This type of antinatalism, the sacrificial utilitarian type, is very different from the consent argument though. The consent argument stems from what is closer to the opposite: The unwillingness to sacrifice a person to another's desires involuntarily.

It doesn't require that one thinks life is bad, so in that sense it is also different from the antinatalism found among depressive types.

>>21772856
>>21772878
Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.

>>21772888
Their argument:
>antinatalists central claim is that life is harm
>they argue that you have to be alive to feel pleasure and stress this isn't guaranteed
>they argue that if you're not alive you are guaranteed not to suffer/harm
>[no guarentee of pleasure, risk of suffering/harm, therefore nonexistence is best = basic thread of argument]
>note: they also like to being up that the fact you don't have a choice in coming into existence
>they conclude that not reproducing and ending life is the optimal outcome to reduce harm

Why they're refuted:
>antinatalists can't validate their central claim as they cannot weigh the total value of life in aggregate (the best they can do is assert individual bad things happen)
>[this is all the refutation that is needed: they cannot draw logic, let alone an extreme conclusion, from a central claim they are unable to prove; simple as--but lets go on to point out their bad logic]
>they place the weight of guaranteed outcomes on detractors but they don't have prescience to forsee the outcome/value of individual lives (let alone the aggregate of all life which they are assuming) but...
>antinatalists are attempting to prove their conclusion and thereby the onus is on them produce a stable logic based on a proven premise
>however, any single example of value in life automatically contravienes their premise and contradicts the logic they attempt to assert
>[antinatalists are generally filtered by this because they still affirm their premise even though reason has been given to reject it]
>we may come to the idea of suicide and ending life (which is logically coherent with their outlook while showing their values are actually incosistent)
>suicide automatically means an end to suffering, any harm caused doesn't exist for the victim (aside, the absence of existence means you can't even weigh such anyway)
>denial of suicide is an affirmation that value exists in life (or else why not? note that they won't even admit that suffering is short relative to continued existence, they really want to avoid clearly weighing anything)
>if the antinatalist says it affects others a consistent logic follows that they kill them as well (the sooner the better in fact--stop them from reproducing which puts an end to countless future lives)
>alas, the anti-natalist will assert their original logic no longer applies once they are alive (again, affirming the value of existing and demonstrating their logic can actually be harmful)
>the last bastion is they HAD no choice to exist (convienently it doesn't matter that they have one now) but again there are plenty of examples of lives worth living

>>21772899
Isn’t that sort of personality disorder or mental illness potentially hereditary? Asking for a childless friend

>>21772908
Why antinatalists are retarded:
>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out
>no matter how many times you point out the logic is inconsistent they retreat to the idea of their unfounded premise and assert it follows naturally
>no matter the absurdities you can show as consistent with their reasoning (i.e. you shouldn't kill yourself let alone others) they will simply change the rules
>life is valuable once it exists and yet we need to stop it from existing...that's what their bullshit boils down to and it's utterly stupid

At this point it's worthwhile to point out antinatalists will ignore strong arguments against their case and use any excuse to stay within their own logic. It must also be noted that trolls responses of "I guess I'll kill myself and others" are retarded: the point is life is valuable and you fail to prove otherwise. You affirm an extreme conclusion, ending all life, based on a demonstrably flawed premise and inconsistent logic. Refuted. Stop making these retarded threads now.

>>21772912
There are always environmental aspects as well. My guess is that anti-natalists are failed psychopaths so low in the social hierarchy as to render their Machiavellianism impotent. Imagine trying to boost your self-esteem by convincing others life isn't worth living. It's pathetic.

>>21772878
>>21772899
>>21772908
>>21772914
This copypasta doesn't deal with the consent argument.

>>21772938
how about I rape you?

>>21772945
I'm inclined to give you permission so that it becomes paradoxically impossible for you to do so.

>>21772687
Anon, you don't understand.

>>21772914
>life is valuable once it exists
>>21772908
>antinatalists can't validate their central claim as they cannot weigh the total value of life
How you validate the value of life and how you can weigh the total value of life?

>>21772989
He's arguing against a strawman desu.

>>21772840
The first and easiest argument which kicks the foundation out from them is simple. To see pleasure and suffering as the purpose of life or as moral values I’d not an inherent thing, it’s a voluntary choice and not one historically or even necessarily globally a common one.

If you say you do not believe suffering or pleasure matter on account of pure nihilism or some transvaluation Nietzsche argument, there’s really nothing they can say other than “no no no you’re lying you have to share the same morality I do.” Which obviously you don’t.

While that alone would be enough, it actually becomes even worse if you consider other positive virtues, if you say suffering-pleasure is one aspect In your judgment which is axiomatically important, there’s no reason you cannot accept other such valuations, such as filial piety, fraternity, or just straight up life, life itself.

And if they argue, “ah but all of those virtues are simply means towards the end of satisfying yourself or reducing your suffering, therefore suffering is more essential and those virtues derivative.”
The valuation of life in itself cripples that, because animal-life as living is the most essential aspect of man as an animal, therefore the suffering-pleasure carrot and stick even if a biological reality, is really just a means towards the end of longevity, life itself is required for suffering and its lack therefore removing life doesn’t satisfy life, you’ve simply removed the more essential element in the calculation. You’ve not helped anyone by not bringing them into being, there is no them.

Etc, I can continue over the nuances of their foundation is easily crippled by not allowing them to set the rules of the game.

As for the specific argument concerning rape and birth, this presupposes an inherent valuing of consent and lack of suffering again, again this is an alien view to most of the world historically, rape was bad because the woman in question was a property and you’re stealing the wealth and diminishing the value of another man, wealth and honor were axiomatically valued by many ancients therefore rape was illegal and bad, but not always so and why deities and great historical men could perform it and be praised for it.

Again if you actually see through the hidden presuppositions you can just point out that the rape is only bad in your model on account of your specific virtues and values, of which cannot be extended to fit the parameters of what birth causes to the birthed.

Even their best minds like Schopenhauer don’t really have a way around just saying you don’t care about suffering.

>>21772655
Antinatalists are the whiniest little niggerfaggots, I swear. Even worse than jews.

>>21773000
And I want to point out, while they portray themselves as the cold rational and anti-sentimental, their position is literally founded on their sentimental passions reacting in anxiety to suffering to the point of desiring to die, what could be more sickeningly sentimental and over-dramatic? They themselves give no great arguments for why they pick their one moral axiom of suffering, they simply just take it as a given on account of their emotions. I would not be surprised if when put under study all of them suffered from various mental-neurological issues, such as Ligotti and his anhedonia diagnosis.

>>21773013
No. Antinatalists are the most life-affirming moral pessimists. They do not support suicide.

>>21773021
If life is good then it’s good, thus its continuity is good, if Life is bad and maintaining and expanding life is bad, you should remove life, therefore kill yourself.

The brute reaction the normie has to tell them to kill themselves is actually very logical, it points out that they secretly still maintain on some level that life itself, to live, is axiomatically valuable to them, so they cannot take their belief to its logical conclusion.

Every day I open /lit/ I see this cover. Is it a good book?

>>21773000
>As for the specific argument concerning rape and birth, this presupposes an inherent valuing of consent and lack of suffering again, again this is an alien view to most of the world historically, rape was bad because the woman in question was a property and you’re stealing the wealth and diminishing the value of another man
Good point, I guess the consent argument only works on those who value the consent of the "victim" rather than the "owner of the victim" kind of like generally do with domesticated animals.

As for your other points, they're fair criticisms against the negative hedonism approach to antinatalism. This works against any and all normative ethics though, it is simply rejecting the premises.

I think most liberal people in the West would commit to the notion that rape is bad for the express reason of lack of consent by the individual undergoing the rape though. They would say that having sex with someone without their consent is always wrong. Some of them might point out that it is unreasonable to require consent for procreation since it is impossible to get, but that objection is easily countered by asking them if "the inability to say no means yes" in the case of an unconscious woman, which no good liberal would accept.

>>21772655
I see a new version of this thread everyday, jannies pls clean up this spam

>>21772933
Isn’t that an even better argument for them not reproducing? Their kids potentially get the double whammy of nature and nurture stacked against them

>>21773030
It provides interesting arguments in a clear style, but it may be a bith lengthy and dry for most. The book was an elaboration on an essay Benatar wrote earlier on, which may also interest you:

https://sci-hub.st/https://www.jstor.org/stable/20009904?pq-origsite=summon

>>21773049
The consent argument has not been discussed before.

>>21773035

>This works against any and all normative ethics though, it is simply rejecting the premises.

Yep, it works on all ethics except the ones you believe in and have a reason/faith for them pretty much, which again, the majority of people already do, whether it’s their religion or just cultural indoctrination of what’s morally good or even biological drive, you already have morals and axioms in opposition to the mono-valuation, that’s simply how people live.

>I think most liberal people in the West would commit to the notion that rape is bad for the express reason of lack of consent by the individual undergoing the rape though. They would say that having sex with someone without their consent is always wrong.

But here’s the key, why do they believe it’s always wrong, they have hidden presuppositions which when asked they’ll try to search out and answer, and they’ll probably say something along the lines of individual life is sacred and autonomy is sacred, therefore personhood in itself is a good thing, personhood itself is a value, and if having personhood is good, then birth itself is good, because the person in question is NOT a person until they’re created, they’re literally nothing, void, you can’t calculate positive or negative consequences for a person who never will be, they either will exist or they don’t, and if they don’t exist this hasn’t helped them, there is no them.

Again, pessimism gets dissolved the moment you pull back the curtain and actually inspect values, even your common liberal can combat it by their valuation of personhood.

Mask off, if antinatalists were serious they’d not only suicide, they’d try to take out as many babies with them as they possibly could.

Why would they oppose genocide especially genocide of children?

>>21773030
No

>>21773074
I think most people actually do have moral intuitions regarding hypothetical future beings. They concern themselves with the long term effects of pollution and climate change for example. Most of them would also consider it immoral to deliberately procreate while, say, incarcerated in a Nazi concentration camp or otherwise sufficiently hellish situation. They would also oppose severely mentally handicapped people procreating at will. Their condonance of procreation is already conditional. They realise the child is hypothetical until it is not, they realise that if someone procreates the hypothetical will become the actual. For a lot of people today, the way they consider our civilisation to be headed is reason enough to doubt having children. And the majority of down syndrome fetuses get aborted, and this is done before they achieve personhood in the eyes of those doing the abortion. So they have a framework for the preventing of something bad happening to a person that does not exist and even for preventing that person from existing to prevent it.

The above doesn't necessarily regard the consent angle of course, I'm just saying your notions of the sanctity of personhood of the existant individual being the highest value isn't necessarily the case.

>>21773030
If it has to be shilled, its probably not worth looking into.

>>21773110
Well in the case of the consent argument for antinatalism that of course would not be so, since killing someone without their consent would be a violation of that very principle.

You're probably thinking of specifically a negative utilitarian motivation for antinatalism. But even then it is not obvious that the plan of action you propose would be the correct one. If there was a button that could instantly painlessly end all sentient life, then you could argue that a negative utilitarian would be obliged to press it since it instantly reduces the suffering in the world to zero and perfectly achieves his goal. But taking yourself out and as many babies as you can, which realistically likely isn't much more than a few dozen, does not obviously minimise the suffering in the world. It wouldn't be hard to argue that the Sandy Hook shooting greatly increased the suffering in the world even if it cut the life of a handful of children short, for example, simply for all the grief it caused the loved ones of those so brutally taken away.

>>21773025
The damage is already done at birth. Committing suicide despite being the lesser of two evils is still an evil. Not to mention the suffering you cause to those who need/love you.

>>21773152
>just let them continue to suffer for decades instead of the momentary suffering before death
You are weak.

>>21773025
>>21773152
Not all antinatalists consider that death is better than life

>>21773025
This presupposes that death can't be worse than life, which isn't necessarily the case, and that death is the same as never having been born, which also isn't necessarily the case. Not all antinatalists are run of the mill scientism materialism atheism types.

>>21773160
How is that? Am I weak for not committing suicide and am I also weak for living? In any case, I never said anything like that, I said that suicide is a evil.

People who don't provide lifelong trust funds to their children also approve of slavery.

>>21773123
Key is future beings, the entire argument of abortion personhood is if you should even consider them personed yet because both groups inherently see personed life as valuable, otherwise these are just incoherencies of the common person, regardless they would still have enough in em to overcome the pessimism.

>>21773140
Why is consent inherently a moral valuation, again if harm and suffering are the ultimate point they stand against, then the mental trauma of a few parents which you could perhaps also kill, would not compare to the life long trauma that is life that you’re relieving the infants of.

>>21773152
Why is death and killing an evil? Death can only be an evil if life is a good, how can the ending of a bad thing and a return to a state prior to that bad thing, result in another negative, no that death and slaying would be positive according to the calculation outlined, the values in the calculation are all there, you would reduce the most suffering by genociding as many babies as you could get your hands on.

>>21773173
If they aren’t then they aren’t gonna hold to the suffering based morality, in the vast majority of cases unless say Buddhism, and even in Buddhism while the point is the end of suffering even this is understood as an upaya, a means towards the greater value of realization for its own sake, awareness for its own sake, lack of grasping for its own sake, this is why In Theravada they give up the desire for liberation in the end and why the bodhisattvas of Mahayana does the same by binding himself to samsara forever.

Again there’s nothing really solid you can pull that can’t quickly be dissolved as explained above.

>>21773179
The weakness in question, is because the belief if taken to its logical conclusion is suicide and the genociding, if life is bad then your view of genociding the children as bad is illogical and you’re neglecting the salvatory heroic role you could be playing by helping all of those children and their parents from suffering the horrors of life, when you could easily end them and then yourself, doing what would be morally best to yourself, thus by neglecting what would be virtuous by the selected position, you are a coward for not genociding the children.

>>21772730
That is not comparable, because people who are raped may otherwise want to enjoy life. A more proper analogy would be rape victims somehow having the option to unrape themselves.

If you hate life itself, If you resent being given life that much, there is a very simple solution to that. It seems like anti natalists actually like life and just want something to bitch about.

>>21773220
>Key is future beings, the entire argument of abortion personhood is if you should even consider them personed yet because both groups inherently see personed life as valuable, otherwise these are just incoherencies of the common person, regardless they would still have enough in em to overcome the pessimism.
Well as I said I think they demonstrate that they apply this value even to hypothetical life and even in the case of preventing said life altogether, so the consent argument might find fertile ground there.

>Why is consent inherently a moral valuation,
It isn't inherently, but for certain people it is and it is seperate from and sometimes opposed to the negative utilitarian valuations.

>again if harm and suffering are the ultimate point they stand against, then the mental trauma of a few parents which you could perhaps also kill, would not compare to the life long trauma that is life that you’re relieving the infants of.
Killing the parents would cause additional people to suffer since we're a social species and we're all networked. That said, neither of us can make a definitive compelling case here which just goes to show how wishy washy utilitarianism is since there is no clear way to calculate (dis)utility.

That's why I think the non-utilitarian arguments for antinatalism are more interesting ultimately.

>>21773240
Suicide is not unborning oneself either. If you claim that it is, that suicide wipes away retroactively everything that has occurred as if it has never happened, then suicide also qualifies as a method for unraping oneself, since being raped is merely a subcategory of being alive.

If death really undoes the life that has occurred and that is the mechanism by which you justify creating someone without their consent, then you could use that argument for everything done without consent to anyone, since we are all mortals and all our deaths would then neutralise what has been done to us.

>>21773279
If you do not believe death is the end of life and the reducing of 0 to life, then that introduces elements which make the question of if like is harm or not more or less impossible to determine without further beliefs concerning what happens after death.

Example, what do you believe happens after death?

>>21773290
Even if death is the end of life, does that in your view make eventually dying the same as not having lived at all? Do you think Napoleon having lived and died or alternatively not having been born at all to be exactly the same?

If you assume that the eventual end of a life means that life may as well not have happened at all you're getting into the strange territory of everything being completely inconsequential merely by virtue of not being eternal.

>>21773279
Like I said, a rape victim may want to otherwise enjoy life because life to them isn't necessarily the problem.

If life is a problem to you, you can easily fix that.

>>21773300
Ending a life does not rewind the suffering that has already happened in that life, so it is not equal to not being born at all, therefore it is not correct to state that death completely neutralises having been born.

Torturing a baby can't be justified merely by saying he can always kill himself when he gets older.

>>21773299
>Even if death is the end of life, does that in your view make eventually dying the same as not having lived at all?

First things first, I do not hold to any materialism, I believe in an immortal spirit, but I will for the sake of argument entertain that death is the end of life, it would absolutely be a negation of experience same as lack of birth.

>Do you think Napoleon having lived and died or alternatively not having been born at all to be exactly the same?

Phenomenologically, from his first person point of view which is the only one which matters in this circumstance? Absolutely there would be no difference between Napoleon never having lived and napoleon being dead if both are the lack-of-conscious, you are simply appealing to others, to feelings of attachments to the self and life. If life is bad and death is the annihilation of conscious, then there is from the perspective of the individual no discernible difference between the state prior to life and after it, and thus if the former state is the preferable, likewise the state after should be preferable if there is no other valuations or virtues in competition.

So are all these antibreeding threads made by one dedicated tranny or is it a bot?

>>21773061
The book is not for me. I will thank you for posting the essay: it satisfied my curiosity about David Benatar's book. Have a good thread!

>>21773310

>Ending a life does not rewind the suffering that has already happened in that life,

The point is that the continual experience of suffering is bad, now you’re worrying about, what? Some abstracted past total of sufferings? Where are these suffering points being stored? If the person is dead all of their suffering would not exist for them, for there would be no them.

>so it is not equal to not being born at all, therefore it is not correct to state that death completely neutralises having been born.

No no it’s absolutely from the perspective of the dead, which is to say, the lack of perspective due to that person no longer existing, it’s absolutely no different to their experience.

>>21773314
>Phenomenologically, from his first person point of view which is the only one which matters in this circumstance? Absolutely there would be no difference between Napoleon never having lived and napoleon being dead if both are the lack-of-conscious
So you would say that, if death were to be the end of life, then anything that happens to mortals is completely inconsequential because they always end up dead and oblivious in the end? If you did not believe in an immortal spirit, would it be okay to torture someone just because in the future they would lack consciousness? I would say that even if an experience is shortlived and may not be eternally remembered, it still matters in that moment. I don't think temporality and mortality nullify morality.

From that perspective, it would be false to say that suicide "solves" having been born within the context of the consent argument, because even when the person eventually is dead those moments between his birth and death have still been forced upon him.

Going to sleep now so won't respond for a bit, gn m8

>>21773321
Thanks and you're welcome.

>>21773344
>So you would say that, if death were to be the end of life, then anything that happens to mortals is completely inconsequential because they always end up dead and oblivious in the end?

Fundamentally if there is no continuity in being and experience and no eternal essential nature prior informing the life, then meaning is impossible, and if meaning is impossible because its origins are nothing and end are nothing, then the consequences are arbitrary, thus the only valuation of actual value is the valuation of Will and life itself in the Nietzschean mode which is an adoration of life and will for its own sake as the origin of value/identity capacity, this however also can still be reduced to being arbitrary and ultimately inconsequential.

>If you did not believe in an immortal spirit, would it be okay to torture someone just because in the future they would lack consciousness?

Why not, other than the personal arbitrary values I hold, such as, compassion, empathy, personal long term prosperity, wellbeing, security and so forth, and if I did not value these, since valuing these is likewise arbitrary, then absolutely torturing and killing random people is inconsequential to anyone but my arbitrary whims and longings and even these will dissolve to 0.

>I would say that even if an experience is shortlived and may not be eternally remembered, it still matters in that moment.

Matters in what sense other than your transient little emotions say so? Your will and care for them will die with you.

>I don't think temporality and mortality nullify morality.

Why not, what is morality when there is no duty and no consequence, there can be no true duty based ethic without some form of essentialism, there can be meaningful consequentialism ultimately if the ultimate consequence always amounts to 0 in the end.

>From that perspective, it would be false to say that suicide "solves" having been born within the context of the consent argument, because even when the person eventually is dead those moments between his birth and death have still been forced upon him.

Again he’s gone, the memories are erased, there is no experience of this, those past events are as dead as he is.
Pic related: the wisdom of Socrates is slain by henbane if you hold to a materialist view and especially one that sees lack of existence superior to existence.

>>21772655
>forcing people to experience
No one is forcing the unborn into existence because the unborn are not people. Your entire thread is fallacious. Kys fag

>>21772655
kys rapist nigger

You can't be a moral person as a natalist.

>>21772655

I kind of am. I have no scruples about stealing brides from enemy tribes. The main issue is that it's illegal and you'd get caught. It's not like they wouldn't cum or come around to it given how pragmatic women usually are Although I would prefer it if she were at least slightly into me. But I'm not ugly

>>21772733

Academia is a mean girl's club now so this guy is definitely just laughed at by everybody. Surprised he can publish anything

>>21773310
You are moving goalposts now.

>>21773418
He teaches Uni in South Africa and is being cancelled for racism because he expected bantoids to actually attend courses with mandatory attendance.

Imagine being a 150+iq Jew in South Africa sincerely trying to teach medical ethics under these conditions. You’d start fantasising about human extinction too.

>>21772938
If you can't prove the central basis of your argument all logic that follows from it can be written off as void. If you want to engage in a subargument after admitting that your overall project is fundementally flawed, I'm open to that.
>>21772989
Anti-natalists need to weigh the value of all lives in order to make their claim that the sum total of existence is negative. I don't have to weigh the value of all lives in order to prove my own life is worth living. Simple as.
>>21772998
It's not a strawman. You promote the idea of an extreme conclusion and simply can't forward a satisfactory basis upon which to build it. Even Benatar admitted that the (supposed) truth of his worldview is "vague" when was pressed.
>>21773051
They can take such concerns into consideration but it hardly gives them a foundation from which they can argue existence is a net negative. I don't deny that some lives are shitty nor that a particular person can experience an existential crisis at some point which could lead one to say their life isn't worth living in that moment. However, claiming a conceptual monopoly in order to force the validity of an extreme conclusion isn't allowed. Their argument can be denied because its basis is demonstrably unproveable.

>>21772762
Benatar refutes hedonistic sexual activity and implies there is no point to life (itself being a net harm). In reality the logical conclusion from reading his work is such that there is nothing stopping someone from bludgeoning fags with a hammer whereas the Bible says this is morally heckin wrong. The other logical conclusion of Benatar is the misanthropic argument which proves that homosexuals, by existing, exert a negative impact on the quality of life of others.

>>21773537
It’s not a subargument but a wholly separate one, antinatalism isn’t a singular ideology. There are many ways to arrive at the antinatalist conclusion.

>>21773558
>homosexuals, by existing, exert a negative impact on the quality of life of others.
how?

>>21773030
Kek, no. If you look at the WikiHow for "How to Live as an Antinatalist" a significant number of the steps are about teaching them not to be annoying to others. Is that someone you want to indoctrinate yourself with?

>>21772655
Normies are okay with rape when it happens to males

>>21773563
>it's not a subargument
It is because it's a means for you to beg the question of your conclusion. If you can't prove the basis of your worldview I hardly trust you to present arguments based on the idea that coming into existence is a corruption. The fact a life can't consent to being brought into the world is tautological. However, you have no moral standing to offer when it comes to how such should be coloured in terms of this debate because your premise is unprovable.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NqeN2RRR3xQ
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/antinatalism-in-purgatory/

>I’m an antinatalist. I think it’s unforgivable to bring new people into this world given that there is suffering. The thing is that lately I’ve been thinking and feeling that people aren’t real. This would partially solve the problem of evil. There is just my suffering and everyone else is a simulation designed to spite me. This should cause me to not feel so antinatalist since the breeders are disgusting alien mockeries of a true human being, namely myself. Yet somehow I still feel very antinatalist. When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust. I suppose that was the intention of the designer(s), to create something that appeared so real that it was actually disturbing. Dr. Miller says I have some sort of syndrome after finding out about my solipsism. I think he’s an imbecile who deserves to be burned on a stake. But out of my bodhisattva-like compassion I would instead grant him a consciousness and send him to heaven forever.

>Like I’ve said before, it’s plausible to me that this is a punishment. My failure at making friends, then my failure at soccer, then my failure in the stock market, then my failure at university, then my crippling depression. The reason I think it’s a punishment may just be projecting a sense of justice to something that is intrinsically devoid of any anthropomorphic qualities. But it may also be that there really is intelligent design (which I now strongly feel is the case) and the reason this isn’t heaven is because the force behind existence isn’t like me. It’s not the sort of thing that would give heaven to its enemies.

>>21773581
I will never understand how the US fell for this.

>>21773110
That qualia computing guy said that some intelligent antinatalists are might going to get hold of Nukes one day.

>>21773590

Yeah I've been thinking about this lately
I have no interest in using this to argue that rape is ok and if you don't think so you're a hypocrite but it's interesting to think about

>>21773581
Still circumcizing my kid. There is a radical difference between circumcised vs non circumcised men in personality. Uncut can't focus, act goofy, more effeminate and cry more. I can tell if someone is cicumcized simply based on how they act.

It's impossible for most people to kill themselves, our instincts are too strong. That's the real tragedy, we are trapped in that prison of our survival instinct so we can not leave this cursed world, none of this would have happened if we were never born

>>21773110
>Mask off, if antinatalists were serious they’d not only suicide, they’d try to take out as many babies with them as they possibly could.
This was basically Adam Lanza's justification for murdering kindergartners.

https://odysee.com/@CulturalPhilistineArchive:c/My-Antinatalism:c

>>21772655
Get well soon, sweetheart

>>21773599
>I can tell if someone is cicumcized simply based on how they act.
Did you check their dicks to see if they were circumcised or not?

>>21773586
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of this guy. I remember I had his videos recommended by algorithm when he was still alive--that's pretty sad because maybe he would have taken off as an e-celeb and not became an hero.

>>21772655
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOhZuny_M

>Also, I have always been an "against random chromosome splicing of arbitrary humans"-type of antinatalist. But not the ultimate kind of antinatalist which believes no experience is better than good experience. Sufficiently good genetic engineering with regard to variables such as happiness and intelligence, psychological resilience, etc. would more than convince me. But this is not realistic in the near future... Sometimes I remember open individualism and get pretty ticked at the sight of newborns, knowing I am that. Please stop contaminating experiential-space. More engineering, less clumsy waddling. If reliable transmutation into positive experiences seems unlikely to be the result of your actions, put your pants on and sit down – primum non nocere.

>>21773606
I ask them. I hate homosexuals.

>>21773405
What's your morality derived from? Moral molecules?

>>21773602
It seems like the type of people attracted to antinatalism share an uncomfortable amount of ideological fellowship with mass shooters.

>>21772655
>If you're okay with procreation you should be okay with rape
Yes, what of it?

>>21772655
Wow OP I am okay with procreation so I guess I am a rapist now. I've lived my whole life thinking rape was wrong but you have freed me from my mind shackles.

>>21773641
Are you asking specifically gay men, or are the men you are talking to straight? And what are their ethnicities?

>>21772655
Babies aren't people

>Every parent who has ever made their kids eat vegetables is a rapist
>Every flight attendant who has ever asked you to take your seat is a rapist
>Every cashier who has ever told you to have a nice day is a rapist
What a fun game

>>21772655
What if the babies being born are genetically engineered to have the maximum possible happiness and minimum possible suffering?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lx3rdVQZ3mo

>>21773699
Haven't you seen Gattaca?

>>21773030
As a rule of thumb, if it's shilled on /lit/, it's shit.

>>21772655
In a night of coital passion
Man and wife, as is the fashion
Lay together in their marriage bed
The wife was daughter to her mother
The man, a son of his own father
He rolled over to her and he said
Before engaging in reproduction
I think that we must pop the question
Towards any offspring we may be sent
My words are harsh, they are not mild
We mustn’t rape our own dear child
And procreate with the kids consent
And so I ask to your empty womb
Will you enter this world, this massive tomb
And bear the burden of our whims and woe
Will you suffer like all the rest
Will you accept this burdensome test
And the unborn child didn’t tell him no
My child, do you understand
You shall labor with your hands
You may even die before you grow
That’s why your consent I am asking
Do you accept this harsh entasking
And the unborn child didn’t tell him no
Oh my child you make me so glad
She’ll be a mom and I’ll be a dad
If you change your mind, please let me know
Would you prefer to not exist
To procreate, should we desist
And the unborn child didn’t tell him no
Nine months later they had a son
Their pride and joy, their first one
He was twenty one inches and 14 lbs or so
My son, have you changed your mind?
Is existence bad, have you come to find?
The newborn child didn’t tell him no
So antinatalists, you all must stop
Hating your mom and your pop
You gave consent, you just don’t remember, you know
You once were sperm you once were egg
You chose to be born and walk on legs
If you didn’t want it, you should have told them no

Give me 1 (one) good reason why we shouldn't automatically kill these incels.

Women/trannies like shouldn't be allowed to voice opinions, since all you do is spit garbage like this. The only to experiencing something is to be born, and the only way to feel pleasure is to know sadnees.

>>21773470

Trying to niggers "ethics" is laced with so much irony I don't even know where to begin

>>21773750
>Women/trannies
There might be a few trannies but I think it's mostly incels.

>>21772833
Poor qualifier. Insects and plants exists, that entitles them to nothing. Existence alone is insufficient ground for rights and even personhood. Prolonged existence after the age of reason is achieved alone should determine self decisions as to whether they want to live or not. Otherwise the parents or the state should determine the fate of invalids and infants. If given rights of themselves as is the case now, then suffering is maximized. Doctors can't euthanize a baby no matter how much pain it is in or bleak its prospects for life.

>>21773699
It's counterfeit happiness. Work is miserable and fending for your own survival at the expense if your waking hours just to get enough money to survive to the next paycheck is no existence at all. The prospect of bioengineering making it more bearable is dystopian and negates any social impetus to improve society and its conditions.

Are there any atheist ethicists that aren't retarded?

>>21773000

Your posts have somehow gotten even worse since I left circa 2021.

>Again if you actually see through the hidden presuppositions you can just point out that the rape is only bad in your model on account of your specific virtues and values, of which cannot be extended to fit the parameters of what birth causes to the birthed.

YES, you cretin! MORALITY AND LIFE ARE MORTAL ENEMIES! That's the difference between you, an animal, and I, a human.

>>21772833
Checked and simple as.

>>21774007
No, all of them are incredibily stupid and retarded. Ethics are objective and they're still trying to cope with it

>>21772655
I am

>>21773537
>I don't have to weigh the value of all lives in order to prove my own life is worth living. But antinatalists yes!

>>21774302
Correct and the point of the argument is that it can't be done, retard.

>>21772655
>If you're okay with procreation you should be okay with rape
Well...

>>21772655
>think that forcing experiences on people without their consent is acceptable behaviour
People who don't exist can't consent nor have right rights or liberties.

>>21772655
OP is a coping troon who can't have children so is trying to ruin it for everyone

>>21772676
>you don’t realize it also commands you to reproduce.
Actually it doesn't. If you are a Christian you should ideally stay chaste. You are not even compelled to have kids if you take wife, you can get married and stay chaste with your wife if you want.

>>21772863
No because that person would be planning to kill people who would actually exist 200 years from now. Secondly directly killing people and giving birth to someone who suffers his entire life isn't equivalent unless you are directly responsible for their suffering.

>>21772655
Consent doesn't exist simple as

>>21772655
The reason why consent is needed is to protect them from sexual encounters that would harm them. This is why it is said that children cannot consent even though they clearly can say yes and understand what sex is.

Life is inherently good and therefore you do not need consent to give it to others.

>>21774410

Yes. They are forced precisely insofar as they are born, not unborn.

>>21774302
First, the quality of life argument is entirely subjective and it's demonstrable that those with negative ideation are more likely to attach themselves to it (i.e. red flag). Second, Benatar even admits when pressed that it's only "vaguely true;" therefore it's fair to argue that it's unstable ground for any conclusion let alone an extreme one. Third, he also projects the label of "hedonist" when someone points out the flaw of an impossible (and I'll say again subjective) calculus--the reality is that one need not be a hedonist in order to point out this (fatal) flaw. In pic-related he asserts that "better to never come into existence is logically distinct from...how great a harm coming into existence is" but the reality is the argument he likes to label "hedonistic" is a logical criticism of the structure of his overall thesis and one need not be concerned with proving there is more pleasure than harm (although it's rather curious Benatar feels the need to "prove" this anyway--it's because it's actually central to his entire argument). The point is simply that he cannot.

The fact is that if Benatar cannot prove existence is a net negative he has no basis upon which to build the argument that existence shouldn't be. As said, he himself admits this is only "vaguely true" which is hardly suitable when it comes to a firm conclusion that's supposedly derived from logic. That one will suffer in life is tautological as is that one cannot consent to coming into existence. However, antinatalists don't have a monopoly on how to interpret these tautologies, quality of life is subjective and you cannot prove the aggregate of existence is negative, meaning you have no ownership over these concepts. Both the asymmetry argument and the quality of life argument can be rejected on these grounds. You can get into specific subarguments relating to them but the central thesis from which you want to judge such is fallacious.

>>21774450
If you think the quantifying of harm is essential to his central argument then you have simply misunderstood him. How do you not get the argument you show yourself in the attached picture?

>>21772655
>nobody getting that this is a reductio as absurdum of liberalism

The alternative to right wing politics is non-existence.

>>21774525
>How do you not get the argument you show yourself in the attached picture?
It's wrong for the reasons I went into.

>>21772655
More like David BETAtar. Look at this fucking guy.

>ABSENCE OF PLEASURE IS "NOT BAD" GUYS!
>THAT'S BETTER THAN BAD!
>Q.E.D.

>>21774638
That's not Benatar. I think he's a guy who did a podcast about Benatar once. Benatar face is a mistery because the only supposed registered photo of him is pic rel.

>>21774721
Haven't found a picture but I found some cringy "humor" shit he wrote.

>>21772655
This guy is unstable.

>>21772655
This guy is unstable.

>>21774821
Literally me

>>21772676
no morality needed. pain (and pleasure) simply displease me. I'd like to see less of both. simple as.

>>21772655
You just forced your gay words on my eyes faggot, ergo you're also OK with procreation.
Q.E.D.

>>21774989
OK.
I'd like more of both.
You have failed to convince me and I am gonna BREED.

>>21775009
no need to convince (You). the argument is simple, you either find value in pain/pleasure (life) or you don't. I think it's foolish.

>>21775021
Oh, you're not OP?
He clearly has a need to convince people.
Anyway, you do you, I do me, simple as.

>>21772856
>dark triad of personality
fuck. psychology is completely dumb and justify the dumbness of everyone. making morality great again.

>>21775044
Did you just have a stroke? Email David Benatar and tell him how right he is because your life is shitty. He won't offer you any reassurance, that's not his bag, but he likes being told he's right and will confirm to you that your life is in fact shit.

>>21775026
no im not.
yes this is the kind of thing that needs life experience to come up with. you can't just use only words to convince people. of course I could be wrong but so far I think that pain/pleasure thing is useless at best.

>Father: Solomon Benatar
>Mother: Evelyn Benatar (nee Goldberg)
benatarsisters… not like this

presupposes morality which all religions view reproduction and a blessing
if you're not invoking religions then you have no basis to say morality is even real

Fuck consent, the best reason to not procreate is egoism. All the literature consistently shows parents having lower levels of happiness. As gene carriers we must revolt against the genes and not let them use us at our own expense.

Embrace Stirnerist biognosticism.

>>21775133
not OP but his argument is still fine even without implying morality.
>If you're okay with procreation you should be okay with rape since you think that forcing experiences on people without their consent is acceptable behavior.
is still true, if (you are personally) okay with violating consent in x, then if you're consistent, you should be also okay with violating consent in y.
otherwise just say that you don't care about either or admit being a hypocrite. im not saying that rape is exactly like birth but it is a similar situation (arguably even worse).

Antinatalists are an amusing side show.

>>21774133
Then take a bullet in the video game Call of Duty Modern Warfare.

why are retards shilling this retard materialistic book

antinatalism is a satanic psyop

>>21772655
Yeah and? Wanna be born and raped too?

it seems only christfags are arguing against antinatalism in this thread.
are there any nonreligoustards arguing against it?

>the biggest fear of every living being dying aka not existing
>no one have no ideia what is not existing
>every cell of your body will try to prevent you from dying
but the conclusion: better never have been

>>21772655
Jumping steps much?

>>21772655
nonexistent beings don't have consent

>>21775269
nonexistent sure, but potential beings can be considered.

>>21775246
what if I do?

>>21775276
those potential beings did not consent to forever remain potential

>>21775251
What are the axioms you believe in?

>>21773592
Nukes won't solve the problem, they will only make things worse. any "intelligent" antinatalist worth their salt wouldn't cause a nuclear holocaust. this is just fear mongering from retarded people scared of the implications of antinatalism.

>>21775546
what about grey goo?

>>21775546
>any "intelligent" antinatalist worth their salt wouldn't cause a nuclear holocaust
why

>>21775560
tech to eliminate life instantly and effectively doesn't exist, not sure about the possibility of one day having one. if life goes extinct on earth it would probably be an accident.

>>21775564
see >>21775568
>eliminate life instantly and effectively
a lot of life would still survive. and for a while in really horrible conditions.

>>21775568
Yeah it's highly speculative, but i think stuff like nanotech is a more likely candidate than nukes even if we don't know if it can be pulled off yet. Nukes are overrated.

My guess is we will fail at space colonisation, potentially crash industrial society and then just hang around on earth doing our little wars and stuff until some astronomical event takes us out.

In a way antinatalists have already won they just need to learn to be patient.

>>21775251
Christians have zero chance to argue against it.
The being that you procreate has the possibility of suffering physically forever or living in grace forever. You know what can happen. Your our children will have children and those children too. Among all of them it is very possible that many will go to hell. At least from a secular point of view, with the belief that the soul dies with the body. The suffering it will likely cause is the same but finite.

>>21775577
would an intelligent antinatalist go around killing homeless people?

>>21775590
All the greatest Christians were celibate ascetics as well, anything short of that was just basically a settling out of one's lack of holiness with marriage as damage control.

>>21775593
No, he would spend billions on female education and participation in the workforce in developing nations since those things are the main factor in lowering birthrates.

>>21775593
maybe a negative utilitarian would, but that person would be a lot more than just an antinatalist(if they were one) just like they would be more than just an atheist (if they were one).
not sure what you're trying to imply. that antinatalits are unhinged murderous freaks? im sure you would find people like that in every category. like a christian that believes in murdering heretics.
either way just like nukes it would cause more misery than good imo.

>>21775619
but why not also kill a couple of homeless people?

>>21775627
low reward to risk ratio, better to fully focus on african feminism.

>>21775619
didn't know that Bill Gates is a closeted antinatalist.

>>21775627
Antinatalists are against both murder and suicide. Or at least Benatar.

>>21773708
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jsEt7zDxRzY

>>21773952
>It's counterfeit happiness.
That's like saying that driving cars instead of riding horses is "counterfeit transportation".

>Work is miserable
Only because the chemical reactions in your brain make it miserable.

>The prospect of bioengineering making it more bearable is dystopian and negates any social impetus to improve society and its conditions.
What would you consider to be "improving society" then?

>>21774721
I saw Benatar irl, he looked like a fag. I told him that his asymmetry argument sucks donkey balls and that his childish book is the sole reason people look down on antinatalism. he said that im a moron and walked away, I said "how typical from the great Benatar him self, just walk away from a debate and ad hominem when you can't win" and he just started weeping quietly.
what a faggot. im almost ashamed of being an antinatalist, even that basement dweller inmendham has more integrity.

>>21774007
David Pearce

>>21775721
>antinatalists are against murder
why? are they also against gift-giving?

>>21775661
lol what risk? literally just have a goon drop a bag of poisoned cocaine next to them

>>21775802
>poisoned cocaine
just regular crack, they'll just overdose.

>>21775708
The clever ones are always undercover when they know the normies wouldn't agree.

Steven Pinker is an undercover Landian btw, that's why he defends progress so much. He's trying to trick us into the singularity with humanist bait.

>>21775796
Do you want a gift that bad dear anon?

>>21775802
Bill Gates seen dropping off baggies of laced blow would negatively impact his image which would decrease his power to diminish African breeding.

>>21775823
pre-empted your lazy counterargument by saying "have a goon do it". Of course if you are just some random antinatalist on the internet you wouldn't have this problem

>>21775819
idk what you mean by that

>>21775827
no, antinatalists aren't against gift giving, gifts of all kinds mind you.

>>21775825
Still not worth it, goon might talk. Much better to just sponsor experimental vaccines if you want to cull a little on the side.

>>21775816
>Steven Pinker is an undercover Landian btw
Yea and Billy boy is a real antinatalist, you keep telling your self that.

>>21775835
And -- to be explicit -- this includes the gift of nonbeing yes?

>>21774821
Literally me except I only care about my suffering.
>>21772655
I'm not having kids because my genetics are fucked and if they grow up like me then yes death is preferable to life and I cba wasting my time raising a miserable fuck like me. Others, do as you please, but it's a thankless task. No God at the end's going to reward you. The only reward is the suffering of raising a child in the 21st century, your little boy a coomer gamer, your little girl a slut without love.
>I won't let it happen
You're forced into a herd vanishing few people have the autism to revolt, chances are it will.

>>21775778
Benatar looks like pic rel

>>21775842
>one goon might talk
>better hire thousands of people to do the job instead

>>21775863
depends, does the person happen to live in a liberal pro assisted suicide country like Belgium, Canada or Jeffry Epstein's jail cell?

>>21775882
No

>>21775876
Yes because empowering women of colour and vaccinating poor people is seen as good, you can't get caught because you're doing it in the open. Only chud conspiracy theorists would object.

>>21775895
Then I'm afraid that there is nothing that can be legally arranged. and I would personally condemn any other heinous means that gift nonbeing.

>>21775908
Why?

>>21775921
Why? just like everything else, muh feels.

>>21774821
What are you trying to say? that caring about suffering is irrational?

>>21775864
>except I only care about my suffering.
egoism fags need to hang

>>21775783
>Hey dave, how you doing?
>oh you know, god awful. sure can't wait for the singularity so that I don't have to suffer being in a flesh prison.
sounds like a tard tier cope.

>>21773698
Since life is inherently negative, then unironically yes, everything in life is rape.

>>21775925
Why do you feel that murder is wrong if illegal?

>>21776089
>life is inherently negative
How so

>>21776174
too lazy to explain on this thread, but I assume you're 18+ of age according to the site rules and you have some experience with life to see for your self.

>>21776174
Not him, but beings who feel pain are doomed. Suffering is present in everyone, but the degree varies in each individual.

>>21773599
I’m also trans btw

>>21776233
circumcision is actually based because it defies nature.

>>21772655
>>21772655
>The defiance of the good atheist hurled at an apparently ruthless and idiotic cosmos is really an unconscious homage to something in or behind that cosmos which he recognizes as infinitely valuable and authoritative.
>For if mercy and justice were really only private whims of his own with no objective and impersonal roots, and if he realized this, he could not go on being indignant.
>The fact that he arraigns heaven itself for disregarding them, means that at some level of his mind, he knows they are enthroned in a higher heaven still.
C. S. Lewis, De Futilitate

>>21775984
>they go for a walk in the park
>interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved
>Benatar starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way) and yelling misanthropic shit
>Benatar starts crying and basically says "life is unacceptable"
>interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)
Yeah, he's pretty unstable. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only ment for those that seek it out (>>21775066). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: yes, he's irrational.

>>21776762
>>Benatar starts crying and basically says "life is unacceptable"
Benatar is bit of a bitch but he's not wrong about life.

>>21776762
the interviewer was an NPC of course they're gonna be at a loss of words. they probably never had an original thought in their life and buy into whatever is the current religion of their time.

>>21772669
That’s sad.

>>21774821
Based Benatar (PBUH). He is a holy man on par with Jesus and Mani.

>>21772669
I have noticed all the posts are similar, never thought it was just one anon making them.

>>21776860
notice how the a lot of the posts here follow the same wording style (with contradicting ideas) but thats definitely because its that one autist over working himself with shitposting, definitely nothing to do with the style of 4chan shitposting.
and also notice how pathetic your poor attempts to ad homn the entire thread are.

>>21776790
No, he's flat out wrong. Conditions of life have improved across the globe dramatically over the last 100 years (skyrocketting over the last 20). I don't disagree that a big part of the human experience is suffering but Benatar's arguments are fallacious and largely the result of a pathetically twisted and bias worldview.
>>21776801
>attacks the interviewer
It was a pretty good article and fairly sympathetic to Benatar's views. Nice cope.

>>21777000
>No, he's flat out wrong. Conditions of life have improved across the globe dramatically over the last 100 years (skyrocketting over the last 20). I don't disagree that a big part of the human experience is suffering but Benatar's arguments are fallacious and largely the result of a pathetically twisted and bias worldview.

his argument isn't based off of socioeconomic or material conditions, he's saying that life it self is inherently negative.

>>21772655
kek

>>21773602
Adam Lanza was a literal turbo sperg that was looking for excuse to shoot people, he never said that he wanted to shoot people because muh antinatalism, he shot them because he was obsessed with school shooters, regardless of his philosophy.

>>21773599
Based. I too can sniff out uncut fags like a bloodhound.

>>21773015
not anon that asked for your reply, but I don't see your point.
I personally don't claim any morality about the subject of antinatalism, my antinatalism is simply a value judgment from the experience of my life. I don't necessarily believe that all life is bad in the abstract, but life as we know it is.
so you say you don't care, I say that either you're delusional or you truly haven't experienced enough suffering in life to know what you're talking about, in which case fine your life might have been worth living, but it doesn't justify (in my mind, not morally justify) bringing out new lives that could potentially suffer.

>>21777035
>his argument isn't based off of socioeconomic or material conditions, he's saying that life it self is inherently negative.
What is that argument?

This book is shit, we new books with much better refined arguments.

>>21777178
name some please

>>21772715
Bruv, Christ explained the Scriptures, and took the faith to another level, i.e., no longer eye for an eye, but love your enemies. He established the Church, with its mysteries (sacraments), although not immediately all, but some took some time. The fact is that one of the Church's mysteries is Marriage, the union of a man and woman with the purpose of procreation is blessed by God. Is Monasticism superior to Marriage? Yes sure. But humanity must go on til the Parousia. Families are necessary. Your claim that early, or the greatest Christians were antinatalists is nonsense.
Like some others have said, this is completely demonic. The devil and the remaining fallen angels, who envy Man, want us extinct. Not God, our Creator.
Christianity is pro-death in the literal sense even. Not anti-birth. In fact this is all switched in Christianity. The day of our death is in fact the day of our birth, that's why we celebrate the saints on the day of their death. If you're not alive, then you can't die (your true birth, because the state in which you'll die is in your hands). This life is like a forging of yourself with the help of God, or rather the inverse, but God can only forge you with your consent, you have to say yes. To fully understand this you have to understand the Resurrection. Asceticism. The Church as a Mother. Etc

>>21777180
none that exist yet. ligottis book is just poetic realism horror that kinda tries to persuade you to see how absurdly awful life is, it's not even a proper philosophical book and it doesn't pretend to be. not many books on the subject, not many that don't attempt to be vague in their pessimism anyways. both the conspiracy and better never to have been are endlessly shilled by fellow antinatalist but honestly they're both garbage. the only thing that persuaded me is my own real life experiences. i'd write a book but im chronically lazy.

as for older writers, Schopenhauer's The World as Will and Representation is slightly better but suffers from the same issue, unless you broke the "delusion" your self, you just won't get it I guess.

>>21777211
>ligottis book is just poetic realism horror that kinda tries to persuade you to see how absurdly awful life is, it's not even a proper philosophical book and it doesn't pretend to be.
I actually like this about Ligotti, there isn't any pretence of objectivity there. Reminds me of Cioran in a way, even though the style is very different.

>>21777035
Correct. But the thing it that the quality of life argument is entirely subjective, Benatar himself admitted it was only true in a "vague" sense when pressed, and the assymetry argument is unprovable. Benatar's interpretation of the tautologies he attempts to monopolize (e.g. life implies sufferering, someone who does not exist cannot consent to existing, etc) constitute evidence of a biased worldview moreso than they do a strong argument. Basically, you can reject Benatar's fundemental premises and he can't escape the unfounded and entirely subjective nature of his argument by appealing to a bias, and somewhat demented, interpretation of reality.

On top of all that there's also the established fact that those suffering from personality disorders and mental illness are more likely to champion Benatar's arguments; these people simply aren't good arbiters when it comes to personal satisfaction let alone social prescription for society as a whole. Benatar himself admits his ideas constitute harm and this doesn't bode well for someone who is supposedly concerned with the diminishment of such.

A man walks through a park full of picnicing familes on a sunny day. When asked about improving the world he not only flatly denies such is possible but raises his voice and begins to cry. It's such a spectacle that the person accompanying him is at a loss for words. He's inconsolable. This is the man whose arguments you feel the need to champion? This is your intellectual hero?

>>21777184
A lot of the later mainstays of Christianity are compromises to worldliness and power.

>On top of all that there's also the established fact that those suffering from personality disorders and mental illness are more likely to champion Benatar's arguments;
sources
plus even if that was true I wouldn't be surprised, antinatalism is relatively unheard of, "the crazies" tend to come first, probably the same was true to atheists in the early 1700s.

>>21777232
yea it's an ok book but it's not an argument, it's for horror readers and those pesky pessimists that already agree.
as for Benatar's book honestly it's a waste of a title. the main argument isn't necessarily bad but it's not the best argument for antinatalism. the title gives the impression that it's a much higher caliber book.

>>21772655
>since you think forcing experiences on people without their consent is acceptable

No one believes that all experiences are the same. Some experiences you can "force onto others" without their consent and some you can't. For example, a Muslim person might be offended if a woman goes out without wearing a head covering. You could argue that she's forcing an experience on him--the experience of seeing a woman without a head covering. Does that mean she's morally wrong to go out in public and subject the poor Muslim victim to that experience without his consent?

Of course not.

Stop being a retarded faggot. You subject people to things without their consent all the time. Think of all the people who have been subjected to your smell without their consent.

>>21773746
if trailer trash inmendham gets you that riled up about antinatalists then I can understand your emotional anger. but know that you're holding this guy on a too high a pedestal to begin with.

>>21777378
>Think of all the people who have been subjected to your smell without their consent.
yea, are you saying that exposure anons tragic body odor isn't a violating experience?

>>21776168
strawman, assisted suicide is not murder.

>>21777355
>the main argument isn't necessarily bad but it's not the best argument for antinatalism.
What is the best then?

>>21777461
muh feels unironically, you have to experience the bad side of life to know.
look into schop or that other faggot cioran. so far not many good books.

>>21772655
Although the internet makes it seem common, the majority of people do not actually hate being alive.
The average person never even considers suicide.
So antinatalism is not really a viable ideology.

>>21777487
oh yea? the average person is a delusional religious high up their ass moral fags, why should I take anything that comes out of their feeding holes seriously?

>>21777487
>There is a very popular opinion that choosing life is inherently superior to choosing death.
>This belief that life is
inherently preferable to death is one of the most widespread superstitions. This bias constitutes one of the most obstinate mythologies of the human species.

>>21777355
>it's not the best argument for antinatalism.
what is the best then?

i think ligotti's appeal to feels is actually pretty much it.

>>21777578
maybe I shouldn't be the spokesman for antinatalism, but yea thats pretty much it. people that ad hom or come up weird ass backwards bullshit on why misery is ok are retarded.

>celebritards give one of the greatest redemption arcs of all time a mild applause
>celebritards go crazy for changette

>>21777184
>Salome— "How long shall death prevail?" >Jesus— "As long as women bear children"

>>21778856
Idiotic. Death has been conquered. You people are ignorant and are so vulnerable to these idiotic demonic ideas its ridiculous. Christ has Risen!! Glory to God!

>>21776990
Why would he do this.

>>21777406
Yes, good job figuring out the obvious point I was making; that OP will condemn procreation and rape as both being "involuntary experiences" thrust onto others, but he goes out and terrorizes the world with his sweaty fat-folds. In fact, OP exists without my consent and should just kill himself.

>>21772655
babies are not concious and have no rights. A good middle ground would be legalising euthaneasia. It would cull the weak

>>21772655
Anti-natalism is the most astroturfed kiked ideology in recent years, just look at the Extinction Rebellion faggots

>>21772655
Yes.

>>21777456
NTA. It is and so is capital punishment.

>>21780790
whatever helps you sleep.

>>21779984
my reply was a bit ironic but you wouldn't be wrong if you want to go full utilitarian.

I can't take antinatalism seriously as the antinatalist creates a closed system in which he is always right by his measure, which grants him the opportunity to be morally vindictive. It is a philosophical system not built for knowledge, but for an emotional rush.

What the antinatalists ought to really do is spread their memes and genes if they want real change in the world.
normies won't ever listen, they're too hooked on their hedonism and are too retarded to understand.
social darwinists and their ilk are also a kind of a hedonist (life affirm-er) but they just don't realize it, and are also too hooked and retarded (and full of their shit) to really understand.
someone needs to take Benatars sperm (without his/her consent) and put it in as many sperm banks as possible, rinse and repeat.

>>21781516
you could say that this is how a human would react psychologically upon integrating antinatalist thought, sure. but you could say the same about nihilism or anything with a slight pessimist tone. at any case just more ad homning. the real question is this:
is life good/worth living?
everything else is just details.

Life rapes you.
your parents, siblings, relatives, friends, partners, teachers, idols, politicians they ALL rape you!
How you ask?
because life is inherently indifferent about your will and desire, just like a rapist.
only a fool affirms life!

>>21772856
This has nothing to do with whether or not antinatalism is correct.

>>21782050
See >>21772878

>>21782050
They're just ad homing, thats all they have, insults and blind apathy towards the inherent misery in life.

>>21775009
Maybe a (rubber) bullet would. these tend to sway rapists too!

>>21782115
>muh ad homs!
Plenty of posts ITT have pointed the faulty reasoning inherent to anti-natalism. That post demonstrates that those professing antinatalists beliefs are likely to have personality disorders and suffer from mental illness. That ideation is directly relevant to Benatar's quality of life argument. Cope.

>>21782152
so it's the delusional optimist and the depressive realist. or whatever. well whatever.
I can call life affirms\ers delusional and come up with some whack theory on why they love life so much and yes antinatalists tend to do that.
but psychoanalysis isn't the name of the game here.

>>21772655
What the fuck anon. This is the 20th thread you've made. Many have argued with you in good faith. You've got your answers. Stop it.

>>21782159
>the quality of life argument is subjective
>Benatar admits it's only "vaguely true"
>the assymetry argument is unfounded
>Benatar cannot monopolize tautologies and demand they be interpreted his way
>antinatalism ideology promotes harm
>Benatar admits this much himself
>antinatalism attracts people with personality disorders and mental illness
>Benatar himself broke down during an interview and left the reporter at a loss for words
Antinatalism is retarded and promoting it says more about your personality than it does your intellect. Simple as.

>>21782159
>depressive realist
P.S. see >>21775066. Depressive realists are treated briefly in that article. Research indicates that this is not the reasoning behind adopting antinatalism (i.e. they are at a poverty in assessing antinatalist arguments). Once again: cope.

>>21782159
>P.S. see >>21772899. Depressive realists are treated briefly in that article. Research indicates that this is not the reasoning behind adopting antinatalism (i.e. they are at a poverty in assessing antinatalist arguments). Once again: cope.

>>21782271
>antinatalism ideology promotes harm
NTA, the way I see it natalists are *doing harm by default, any harm that could come out from our side is negligible compared to what nature has been doing since the first conscious thing.
plus, the ends justify the means.

>>21782292
Following this logic, an anti-natalist should kill themselves because the harm they are causing is negligible compared to the of existence that will be removed. It is a net positive.

>>21782298
*the pain of existence

Actually debating this seems retarded. You have a group of people, natalists, procreaters, "breeders" etc who PRE-THEORETICALLY desire their own children. There's no reason behind it, no philosophy, no "life is inherently good so I will rationally knock up a woman to increase the net joy in the world" or some shit. No, it's just inbuilt in them like animals. Breed, fuck, impregnate, participate in the social institution called fatherhood, motherhood, having a family, performing a role, having an identity, pleasing the inlaws, it's "what one does", follow the lifescript, and for the fucking majority of the chinks and niggers and zoomies and braindead normies it's more like "oops the condom broke", "oops we got caught up in the moment", "oops it felt best on my pee pee to fuck raw and now she's prego hahah guess I'm a papa now! mommy wants grandkids anyway so it's fine!!".

Nobody has kids for these grand philosophical reasons. It's not rational. So what fucking good is it to argue and debate them through a philosphical or rational end? It would be like assuming a person eats because he thinks life is inherently good and wants to continue it, rather than him simply being hungry. We are so much more mindless than than the antinatalists suspects.

And what the hell does it even mean, in practice, to BE an antinatalist? You chop your balls off? Your refuse all sexual contact? You go round ripping out womens wombs? At it's basic level procreation is biological reproduction, sperm meets egg. There's no real will or conscious choice here. The sperm reaches the egg by blind will, the egg attaches to the uterus by blind will, the cells divide and grow by blind will. What part of this is conscious choice? Our bodies just do what they do. The two sexes can say well look our bodies have this capacity, this domino chain ready to fall if sperm gets near the pussy so we should refrain, abstain, or take measures to prevent this. But what really is this? A rejection of our biology, our own desires, drives and nature. Is this reasonable? I want to fuck and cum inside women. Antinatalism says no don't do that because the concequences, for the child to be are bad. But I eat even though the concequences for the chicken are bad, I drive my car even though the concequences for the environment are bad. I walk down the street even though the concequences for the insects underfoot are bad.

I mean whats the end result here? We should just all stop breathing and nuke the planet and die because some fag takes an attitude towards life that it sux ? Well it doesn't suck for me, I'm glad I'm alive.

Honestly I think antinatalism is what happens when you extend your empathy too far. It's like normal people care about their loved ones, children, maybe some vague notion about citizen. Then the vegans go further and it's farm animals as well, and then you have the antinatalists who extend their empathy even beyond existence caring about 'potential humans'. It's just ridiculous.

>>21782298
I don't see the issue here, thats kinda the plan eventually. but a single person dying isn't going to fix the world. better to stick around and clean the mess first. as much of it as possible anyways.

>>21782313
So you won't kill yourself to first "clean things up". Are you sure your ideology isn't a psyop? You want to convince your enemies to stop reproducing so that you will inherit the Eart no?

>>21782312
Look, I've been in this the same thread 20 threads ago stating this same argument to OP, albeit using different language.
There is literally no reason behind our instinctual programming. It just is. Even a crappy worm seeks to reproduce when it is season.
However, anti-natalists explicitly create reason and attribute evil intention to their opponents, without having any final reference themselves. They aren't Gods. They don't know the underlying nature of things to judge and compare non-existence to existence. And yet here they are being rabid and obnoxious.
I'm convinced that OP is borderline ill. Initially I believed he had strong feelings towards suffering, had a general sentiment of reducing suffering, but got carried away trying to rationalize his sentiment. But now I know he's slightly fucked in the head.

>>21782312
>Nobody has kids for these grand philosophical reasons. It's not rational. So what fucking good is it to argue and debate them through a philosphical or rational end?

I just think that life is inherently bad and would like to see it end because I don't think its good for anyone.

redditors will whinge all day about how bad the education system is, how fucked up modern capitalistic society is, r/antiwork, and then turn around and have kids. procreators approve of rape, they just whinge about the conditions it occurs in. antinatalists object entirely.

It's kind of like the debate between vegans and meat eaters. One says no, end this altogether and the other says oh man battery hen farms are so bad I just buy free range!!!

the human body is a flesh prison of needs, endless desires, consumption, all while being watched by the vulture of sickness, aging, and death.

these natalists will cry at death and then have a child knowing it will suffer the same fate.

>>21782342
You are mentally ill. Nothing you say matters. End yourself and spare us more suffering.

>>21782346
Natalists respond with these insults/ad hominens all the time. "just kys". "you're mentally ill". "bla bla bla". I feel like the best response to this would just be to post gore webms.

>hey guys life has bad parts we could prevent that for our children if we didn't have them, with no downside for them because they don't exist to suffer the absence of the good!

natalist: nuh-fucking-uh you braindead mentally ill F.R.E.A.K. you uhh you know what chud INCEL you should just KAY WHY ESS yourself nigger (hard R). Hard fucking ARRR. I am ANGRY!!!1

>*posts gore video of subhuman jungle monkey machete chopping some headless mexican changas pussy off and flopping it like a rotting mackarel*

>>21782312
>I mean whats the end result here? We should just all stop breathing and nuke the planet and die because some fag takes an attitude towards life that it sux ?
Yes?

>Well it doesn't suck for me, I'm glad I'm alive.
no, it does and it will continue to suck. you're just deluded. and furthermore you're willing to gamble with someone else's life just because...

>Honestly I think antinatalism is what happens when you extend your empathy too far.
lol, "you guys are TOO empathic".

>and then you have the antinatalists who extend their empathy even beyond existence caring about 'potential humans'. It's just ridiculous.
yes it's ridiculous to care about a future holocaust or a burn victim, indeed very silly. lets just keep playing this stupid life game cuz muh instincts until the sun dries the surface of the earth.

there is only one (and only one) good argument against antinatalism, and that's to reject the idea that pain (or misery) is bad and that since pain is part of life, life is inherently bad/negative. do that and you can convince me and the rest of the antinatal fags.

>>21782367
>>*posts gore video of subhuman jungle monkey machete chopping some headless mexican changas pussy off and flopping it like a rotting mackarel*
do it pussy, or are you too scared of some janny?

>>21782370
>and that's to reject the idea that pain (or misery) is bad and that since pain is part of life, life is inherently bad/negative. do that and you can convince me and the rest of the antinatal fags.

why are you priviliging pain so much? I could just as well say life is inherently good because pleasure is a part of life. antinatalists are just depressed and never feel pleasure and think all life is all pain all the time, because it is for them and their weak genes. they philosophize their mental illness and project it's solution as the end of humanity, when in reality if they actually put some effort in and worked on their illness they'd get better and see life is good and get a gf and want to make kids with her because that's out natural desire as humans.

>>21782292
>NTA, the way I see it natalists are *doing harm by default, any harm that could come out from our side is negligible
How convenient. Too bad the harm antinatalist arguments do is obvious and perceptible whereas one has to buy into a retarded ideology to see normal people simply perpetuating the species as harmful.

>>21782397
did the idea of antinatalism hurt you? lol I didn't know you were such a soft person, im so sorry that those brutish antinatalists told you that life sucks. maybe you shouldn't be here else a wild anon might tell you kill your self, oh the horror!

This is the dating profile of the guy telling you not to have children:

>https://briantomasik.com/my-dating-profile/

"I can be a bit irrationally cautious about some things. For example, I'm a bit of a germaphobe. I don't like sharing towels, silverware, dishes, etc. I dislike "double dipping" with food. I'm nervous about getting Lyme disease from ticks that are prevalent around my house, and I spend a fair amount of time checking my body for ticks. If someone else goes outside around my house, I prefer to avoid touching them until after a thorough tick check in case they have ticks crawling on them.
Consistent with my germaphobia, I'm very cautious regarding sexually transmitted infections (STIs). I'm even slightly grossed out by lip kissing and would prefer kissing places that aren't bodily openings. Before having sex I would first want to do a complete array of STI tests, including for things like genital herpes that aren't always tested by default. Because of the "window period" for HIV testing, I would prefer for an HIV test to occur as much as half a year after the last possible HIV exposure (such as from sex with a previous partner), and I would prefer to avoid sex (even with condoms) until the test came back negative. While I think having sex before marriage is a good idea to verify sexual compatibility, I prefer not to rush into it either. "

JFL

>>21782417
I'm a lacto-vegetarian, meaning I'm vegan except that I eat dairy products (mostly cheese and ice cream). I'd be happy with a partner who was vegan or lacto-vegetarian. I also don't mind someone who eats beef on a regular basis because the harm caused to farmed animals per calorie of food is much smaller than for other forms of meat and because in some cases I think cattle farming may reduce wild-animal suffering. I would probably feel dismayed to see a partner eat any smaller animals than cows on a regular basis. (Maybe lamb would be ok too.) Eating a serving of fish or other non-cow animals once or twice per year as a health precaution would probably be ok, and eating meat leftovers from a social event that would otherwise go to waste is of course fine.

I would also prefer if my partner didn't consume much honey or rice, for animal-suffering reasons, although this is less important than not eating chicken/fish/eggs, and if I can be convinced that rice harvesting is no more violent than, e.g., wheat harvesting, I'd be fine with it.

I prefer to avoid non-trivially illegal activities, including illegal drugs. I also wouldn't want secondhand smoke in the house. My main concerns with drugs like alcohol would be whether they impair one's judgment or cause one's personality to become more annoying. Personally I don't do any drugs (besides medical/nutritional ones) and never consume alcohol. I even avoid caffeine, but I wouldn't care if a partner consumed it.

>>21782420
If we lived together, I would imagine splitting housework in the same way that strangers sharing a house would: we would generally each take care of our own side of it. We could each clean our own rooms, prepare our own meals, do our own laundry, etc. If one person wanted to do some of these things for the other person, that would be fine (although I personally would still want to clean my own rooms and prepare most of my own food). Some activities like grocery shopping and taking trash to the transfer station would make more sense for a single person to do for both of us (or we could hire a third party to do these tasks).

I would favor dividing the house between us as much as possible and letting each person do whatever s/he wants with his/her half of the house (except in the case of externalities like noise, secondhand smoke, jeopardizing the security of our home computer network, etc). Our possessions would likewise be mostly our own rather than shared. Dividing things up in this way would reduce the frequency of disagreements about how something should be done, because there would be fewer things to disagree about. Some rooms (like the kitchen) and possessions (like the washing machine) would have to be shared, and in that case, we would decide together what changes to make to them.

I think entertainment/music/etc tastes are pretty irrelevant for romantic compatibility. For whatever it's worth, the movies/shows/channels on Netflix and YouTube that I watch are mostly comedies, because I usually want to relax rather than to process something emotionally heavy, though I enjoy other genres too on occasion. Even if I lived with someone else, I would prefer to watch TV on my own while exercising, because I only want to watch something when I'm specifically in the mood for it rather than at a scheduled time, and I often take breaks. For example, if I'm lifting dumbbells, I may need to take a bathroom break to wash my hands if they've become greasy, which worsens my grip. I would prefer for a partner to always use earbuds/headphones while watching TV or listening to music to avoid creating noise, and I do the same.

>>21782420
>>21782417
Absolute letzter mensch material

Whenever an antinatalist makes a thread, just remember that this is the type of person telling you not to have kids.

>>21782428
society is collapsing

Man we really need a proper philosophy board. this gay ballad of an illusion of choice between /lit/ and /his/ is nauseating.

>>21782402
See >>21775066. I accept your concession.

>>21782417
>>21782429
ad hom nigger is gonna ad hom. cuz the nigger can only criticize the character not the idea, because hes a nigger.

>>21782448
I accept that you can only attack the style of the debater and not the substance of the idea debated.
you ad hom nigger.

>>21782455
>the quality of life argument is subjective
>Benatar admits it's only "vaguely true"
>the assymetry argument is unfounded
>Benatar cannot monopolize tautologies and demand they be interpreted his way
>antinatalism ideology promotes harm
>Benatar admits this much himself
>antinatalism attracts people with personality disorders and mental illness
>Benatar himself broke down during an interview and left the reporter at a loss for words
Not ad homs. Cope, faggot.

>>21782465
1. Benatar is a massive faggot and antinatalists should spit on his face and shit on his book
hes a bad representative of antinatalism both because of his character and his childish coloring book.

2. you're an ad hominem retard

3. the only possible harm that could come out of antinatalism (chadism) is that weak betas like you might cry and need a diaper change whenever they hear an antinatalist speak.

4. you are STILL an ad hominem retard

If every anti-natalist were killed, anti-natalism could no longer possibly be true by definition

>>21772655
People whose procreation would offer eugenic benefit to humanity should be given incentive tantamount to force to do so. If you aren't at least considering to some degree raising a big family then you are a useless hanger on, a barnacle on the human race. Whatever your ambitions or dreams are in life, if you couldn't do them while simultaneously parenting several non-useless children then chances are exceedingly high that they aren't worth doing.

>>21782570
if every mathematician were killed then 1+1 = 2 could no longer be true by definition.