/lit/ - Literature

>>5558659

My life is awesome and I want to fug my pregnant wife over and over and pour myself into her every night. Then we're going to have awesome kids (yes more than one) who will find life more sweet than sour, and who will overcome challenges and continue the cycle.

Probably overpopulation

>>5558672
So people like you are an argument in favour of antinatalism?

antinatalism has already won, the extinction event is coming. it's inevitable.

>>5558659
http://www.rense.com/general12/bub.htm

>>5558659
That all the pleasure in the world could never outweigh the suffering. We're talking birthday parties vs cancer here.

>>5558871
So it's purely utilitarian?

>>5558732
This game is no fun.
Also, the thought experiment:
Would you, if you could, push a button that removes you from existence before you were ever born?
If yes, push the button for someone else, and don't have offspring.

>>5558871
> all the pleasure in the world could never outweigh the suffering. We're talking birthday parties vs cancer here.
using that schema, yes, pleasure could theoretically out-weight suffering

probably that incoherent one that that guy keeps posting where he ascribes properties to nonexistent objects and insists that the parents are responsible for that ascription

we don't know what after death if anything so
why kids?

>>5559054
>not pushing the button for everyone

https://archive.4plebs.org/x/thread/14116244/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IX_UhSi7lY

>>5559028
That's one of the ways. Ultimately it all comes down to arbitrary preferences and how you can enforce yours in the world though.

>>5558659
The arguments put forward by Buddhists

>>5559121
mai waifu

i think it depends wether or not you share a pessimists view of existence. as a pessimist life, or say, existence doesn't seem to have value in itself. most people would argue that it has but there is no way one of these positions could be proven right or wrong with what we know. so it's something you believe in or you don't.

so being a pessimist and being aware of the senselessness of existence (which as far as we know only humans experience) one could argue that there is no point in participating in the big senseless slaughter our universe represents to us any more.

>antinatalism

The final sickness of intellectualism.

>>5559211
Euthanasia is a treatment, not a sickness.

>>5559177
Would you consider it possible or impossible to turn optimists into pessimists and vice versa?

>>5558713
haha noice

>>5559065
pleasure is always less than pain

the coyote that eats the hare always feels less pleasure than the hare feels pain

>>5559128
Buddhism is based on the assumption of reincarnation

why they believe that, who knows

Antinatalism is a spiritual belief, therefore it is automatically wrong.

>>5559267
"I'd rather never have been born"

so spiritual

>>5559271
It assumes the existence of a spirit, so it's a spiritual belief.

>>5559271

Is that what antinatalism is about? Or more like "we shouldn't procreate"? There's a difference. One could, I presume, also be a moderate antinatalist, as in supporting strictly regulated number of births?

>>5559279
I am not a spirit, I am a series of electrical impulses cycling through a biological infrastructure (my brain). When I die, it will be like before my birth - complete absence of any and all things.

I am an antinatalist.
I wish I was never born.

You're wrong.

>>5559283
Antinatalism claims that existence is more pain/suffering/bad than pleasure/good/happy. That coupled with the fact that no one chooses to be born, is reason enough to be against procreation.

I consider myself antinatalist but still realize that it's a moral argument that depends entirely on how empathetic someone is and how they respond emotionally to the proposition.

>>5559267
>don't get pregnant
>spiritual

This really rustles my chakras.

>>5559310

I'd venture a guess that some antinatalists would say they base their anti-birth (which I guess is what it is in the end about) beliefs more on the no one gets to choose part instead of the pain-suffering -axis. As in, we cannot choose life for people except out of our own necessity (the minimal amount needed to continue our species).

>>5558672
I foresee your children taking their own lives after relentless distress that you have no control over.

have a good day

>>5559335
I base my anti birth on the fact that life is shit but once in a while something will happen that rekindles my hope, and staves off my inevitable suicide for another week :)

>>5559297
You are labeling yourself as an individual, and that's what a spirit is.

>>5558659
I think all the arguments for anti-natalism sound ridiculous, especially the more you try to "flesh them out", and I'm about as "dedicated"/"serious" an anti-natalist that you can get.

The way I "justify" the position is by looking at how "awfully miserable" everyone's life seems to be. Anyone with even a little empathy should realize this and not have children who will grow up to be miserable losers that are forced to "carry on the torch of being miserable."

Probably the position makes sense only to those who think a lot about killing themselves (which also means that a lot anti-natalism talk is "hung up in" "angst").

>>5559407
tao is that you?

>>5559407
>which also means that a lot anti-natalism talk is "hung up in" "angst"

I agree with you, but this means the effects of having an antinatalist mindset (I.E. not having kids) are thoughtful and empathetic at best, and at worst perhaps unnecessary. If anything it's simply erring on the side of caution, having respect for the power of bringing a life into the world, and understanding the underlying mechanics and motives of societal human reproduction.

>>5559074
you should probably come back when you understand both formal logic and biological reproduction

>>5559121
she's too pretty to be an antinatalist

>>5559265
Not all schools of Buddhism are.

>>5559121
>pitch-black hair
>clear eyes with shadows under
>pessismistic discourse yet eanest, expressive face

I want to commit erotic sudoku with her now.

>>5559446
Then why not just suicide?

>>5558659
You can't know whether the individual you bring to the world is going to be healthy and happy.
It's gambling on someone else's life. You wouldn't accept this kind of thing with an already living person, but you do with one that doesn't exist because you want a miniature you scurrying around the world.

>>5559584
Are you asking me personally or are you asking why certain schools of Buddhists don't just suicide?

I would assume it has something to do with living in the present and trying to enjoy life as much as possible. Although on the other hand there really is no explicit Buddhist argument against suicide, at least in the kind of Buddhist schools of thought that I read.

That's the tricky thing about zen and Buddhism in general. It's fun to talk about and makes a kind of intuitive sense, but the more you try and describe it the less clear it becomes and at some point it becomes self-evident and circular to the point of being trite and banal.

>>5559605
This is a pretty good summary.

>>5559637
I'm asking why Buddhists don't kill themselves.

>>5559605
>implying individuals exist

>>5559644
I would imagine that some do. Like I said, I don't remember any real argument against suicide in Buddhist thought, and some forms of Buddhism certainly aren't incompatible with suicide.

>>5559652
On some level they do. The designation "individual" is just a framing device. If you want to get pedantic, we can view the body as a society of cells, or go even further on the level of the molecule, etc. It doesn't really take away the weight of the argument.

>>5559605
Adding to this. When people picture kids they picture a happy family with a white picket fence and the nice neighborhood. They don't picture their daughter getting raped, or robbed, or murdered, or being a bitch, or being a cutter, or being a shrill tumblr whale, or a prostitute, or a single mom. They don't picture divorce, or some rare cancer in the family. They don't picture the son getting into drugs, or getting put in a coma for hanging around the wrong people, or the suffering caused if he gets in a speeding accident and gets debilitating brain damage, or a child with terminal recessive diseases, or the son being accused of rape and being put on the sex offender list and having his life totally fucked up, or the child accidentally drinking bleach from under the sink and having horribly painful intestinal issues for the rest of his life.

Fucking optimists cause more harm than good.

>>5559283
>One could, I presume, also be a moderate antinatalist, as in supporting strictly regulated number of births?
isn't that eugenics?

The antinatalist arguments set forth, when taken to their logical conclusion mean we should not to create intelligent AI either.

To me, that's an absurd logical end to some of the arguments made here because whether some of the AI we create might suffer, isn't a good enough reason not to try to create super intelligent benevolent AI and create the coolest world ever and traverse the galaxy and eat space dogs with sexy blue aliens.

If you're dumb enough not to want that, then please be quiet and don't ruin it for the rest of us.

>>5559679
the future is "Idocracy", not "Space Odyssey"

>>5559669
I will take no arguments against antinatalism seriously until someone tries to counter this.

You could even say "yes bad things could happen, but so could good things :^]"

So what? Those things are a real risk, and the person they will happen to has no say in the matter because YOU fucking brought them here.

>>5559661
So then why does it matter what somebody's children are subjected to if it's just an extension of their cells?

because quietism

the argument that experiencing nothing is the greatest good

>>5559679
>space dogs and sexy blue aliens r kool lol!!

I can't wait until you're 80 years old lying in a hospital bed shitting your diaper and screaming at the doctor to give you more morphine, surrounded by a bunch of other people also screaming in agony.

>>5559637
>That's the tricky thing about zen and Buddhism in general. It's fun to talk about and makes a kind of intuitive sense, but the more you try and describe it the less clear it becomes and at some point it becomes self-evident and circular to the point of being trite and banal.
Sounds like it's transcribed from a DFW interview (that's not a compliment).

>I would assume it has something to do with living in the present and trying to enjoy life as much as possible.
Starbucks intellectual.

>>5559698
Because you're looking at it from a single, narrow level. You're refusing to look at a situation from different levels, aka Seeing the Big Picture. That's the literal definition of close-mindedness.

>>5559709
>Sounds like it's transcribed from a DFW interview (that's not a compliment).

Uh okay? I've never read DFW.

>Starbucks intellectual.

Why are you so quick to ad hominem? I never said I was a Buddhist or that I agreed with the sentiments expressed, I was simply giving a quick description based on what I read. If you think it's wrong then share with the rest of us instead of assuming I'm a pseudointellectual based on what coffee shop I frequent.

>>5559722
Buddhism has nothing to do with "enjoying life as much as possible."

>>5559669
Have you ever thought that if someone wants to adopt a child, they have to go through a hell of a lot of controls, regulations and bureaucracy, but if they just want to make a baby all they have to do is stick a penis into a vagina and wait 9 months?
It's just mind bogging. It's fair that the government wouldn't want children in shitty and/or abusive families but they don't do shit if you make a new person from scratch.

>>5559729
The government can't even do its job now; giving ANY control over reproduction would be disastrous.

>>5559726
>Buddhism has nothing to do with

"Buddhism" is not one single system of thought.

>"enjoying life as much as possible."

That's not what I said. I said "living in the present", and some schools of Buddhist thought can be used by people who are "trying to enjoy life as much as possible".

>>5559661
At what point does a group of molecules become an "individual"?

>>5559744
It becomes an individual slightly before this semantics argument becomes relevant.

>>5559741
>"Buddhism" is not one single system of thought.
At the general level, yes it is. How is your latte?

>That's not what I said.
I directly quoted you. That's what you said. Did you choose a latte or a crappachinu?

> I said "living in the present", and some schools of Buddhist thought can be used by people who are "trying to enjoy life as much as possible".
Bzzzt wrong, try again. Yes, you can be wrong here. How does it feel to be wrong after being told all through primary school that you're a smart special snowflake? I bet you're raking up quite a tab. How many coffees ar you on now?

>>5559744
If you're asking for bullet points or a hard number then I don't have an answer for that. All I'm saying is that sometimes what you see depends entirely on how you are framing something.

Are you arguing against the idea that we are not, on some level, individuals? Would you say that you're not an individual?

>>5559751
>At the general level, yes it is

No, it's not.

>I directly quoted you. That's what you said.

No it's not because you deliberately omitted a word, and coupled with your constant references to Starbucks drinks it's obvious you're not here for honest dialogue. I'm not going to carry on this conversation for 20 more posts if all you're going to do is make personal attacks and baseless assumptions about me. Sorry.

>>5559709
>>5559722
no DFW would have argued that despite seeming trite such statements were ultimately of deep and lasting value

>>5558871

if life is so bad then cancer and suffering are no problems at all.

Only if life is good and desirable will you be "troubled" by such things as cancer, suffering, loss, death, etc...

Ipso Facto you love life!

>>5559752
Nope. My boundaries extend ahead of my senses, so I can never identify as an individual, because by the time my senses catch up with my boundaries, I will have become everything.

>>5559777
>free will

>>5559446
Which schools of Buddhism dont believe in it?

>>5559779
Interesting. What kind of morality do you draw from this, if any?

>>5559782

what about it?

>>5559794
>Which schools of Buddhism dont believe in it?

It's not really a particular school, it's more like Western "gurus" who are bound by their dogmas.

>>5559840
So would it be fair to say an overwhelming majority of Buddhist schools and practitioners historically and in contemporary times work on the the assumption of the cycle of rebirth?

>>5559794
>>5559840
Reincarnation is silly, and rests on the idea that "you" will be materialized at some later date without ever reflecting on what exactly they mean by the "you" that is supposedly being reincarnated. As if your material consciousness that ceases to be once you die is somehow spiritually connected to another consciousness somewhere down the line.

I suppose on a completely reductionist physical level this is true (we're all stardust, the rotting flesh of an animal becomes consumed by another animal and becomes part of that animal, etc.), but the way in which they use it is disingenuous and obfuscatory, and it seems to be an attempt to cling onto some narcissistic idea of your consciousness surviving past your expiration date, even if you don't happen to remember it.

>>5559858
What is being "cycled" and who is being "re"-birthed?

>>5559871
Define "consciousness".

>>5559886
I don't need to define consciousness because that's my argument. I'm literally asking Buddhists to specifically elaborate what they mean by reincarnation and consciousness.

>>5559707
in a highly overcrowded* hospital, mind you

>>5559880
Im not particularly sure however the fact that Buddha spoke about his past lives and the discussion of several realms of existence some higher some lower seems to indicate that he wasnt discussing it in the sense of

>(we're all stardust, the rotting flesh of an animal becomes consumed by another animal and becomes part of that animal, etc.)

>>5558659
eugenics >> natalism >> antinatalism

0-"because nature" arguments are ridiculous. We are part of nature. As "bad" as we might be, nature is an infinitely cruel entity. Animals live not knowing if they will have a meal that day, or if they will be eaten alive by a predator or rotten by some nasty disease. Animals are not "good guys" either. The double standard for animals is idiot. A tiger is as a "good guy" as a psychopath.

1-antinatalism probably has an inverse effect it advocates - intelligent people, which would probably understand a reasonable argument for nor procreating, are precisely the kind of person that the world "needs" in order to be better. Natalists are retarded animals and will keep breeding now matter how much nonsense it is - and this is the kind of people that makes the world suck.

3-Life is not bad for everyone. It is bad for most people, although they don't realize it. But , for example, Kate beckinsale's husband is probably having an infinitely pleasurable life fucking that deity. The mere thought that someone is getting a blowjob from her or fucking her anus makes me want to suicide due to envy. Life is REALLY worth for rich-beautiful people

Anyway, I can give a good argument for antinatalism:

It is certainly the missing component of capitalism - for a "fair" world. The low wages and labour conditions of the poor its just there simply because there is too much people. Stupid people claim rich people hate the poor - its exactly the opposite: They love it, and depend on it: poor people = cheap workforce + consumer + gullible mass. They are what allows that their children will never be taxi drivers, garbage man, maids etc. If people realized life is not worth living if you don't have life quality and stop having children the social pyramid would have to constantly transform itself towards a smaller inequality for the economy to be sustainable. The global economy is totally dependant on the fact that people who shouldn't have children keep having them - and they're are getting it for free, because people are too stupid. In countries with birth rate problems, government gives aid to people who accept to have children. This would be immensely stronger if people were rational and did not have children;

>>5558659
Only under capitalism can the idea of antinatalism exist.

>>5559969
Finally capitalism does something good.

>>5559969
>Only under capitalism can the idea of antinatalism exist.

wrong, and even if it were true it doesn't matter

>>5559969
capitalism depends on natalism

>>5559871
>>5559880

nothing "survives" or "traverses" death, what happens is a material/mental restructuring based on dependent origination.

Disintegration of the material form (lacking physical form) is not enough to protect one from being born, it was never enough in the past, why would it be enough in the future?
Westerners delude themselves with wishful thinking about death. They think that their future death or disintegration will somehow magically PROTECT them against the schemes of the Universe....Yet they blind themselves to the history of their condition and where they came from.

Tell me how well death (non-being) worked for you for the 14billion years prior to birth? Tell me how effective it was to be no body, to be disintegrated/dead/nothing/formless etc…
>hurr but muh brain will be gone at death!! Haha! That’s the ticket!
There was no brain to begin with. You had no brain or identity prior to birth for 14 billion years. Being brainless is not a haven for you. It is not a problem to restructure a modality, a new machine for one to suffer as. It never was a problem. You won't even notice the passage of time before you appear once more. And once more will confidently believe that death is a possible eternal sanctuary and round and round you will go.

If you find yourself reading this shit I'm saying basically the Universe knows your "code" --- knows how to structure you, (it has nothing to do with spirits or souls), it can be purely material…either way you’re fucked

>>5559683
>>5559707


Sucks for you guys, I'm gonna have a cyborg body powered by tacos and beer and will be the Captain of the USS enterprise. Doing meditiation at the viewport and eating from my replicator.

If your good, there might be a janitorial opening.

>>5560001
>Disintegration of the material form (lacking physical form) is not enough to protect one from being born, it was never enough in the past, why would it be enough in the future?

Why are you under the mistaken impression that just because the material formulation that is "you" came into existence once that it can happen to that specific formulation again? It's logically and physically incoherent. Complete nonsense.

>why would it be enough in the future?

Because "you" are a physical construct that ceases being "you" when "you" die. Buddhist reincarnation has yet to tackle a meaningful definition of what they mean by "you" when they say "you" are reincarnated.

>Tell me how well death (non-being) worked for you for the 14billion years prior to birth? Tell me how effective it was to be no body, to be disintegrated/dead/nothing/formless etc…

It didn't work for "me" at all because there was no "me", and arguably there is no "me" right now.

>It is not a problem to restructure a modality, a new machine for one to suffer as.

Exactly. A "NEW" machine. Which makes the "re" in "reincarnation" a meaningless tautology.

Believing you can outlive your material expiration date isn't anything but narcissism gone wild.

>You won't even notice the passage of time before you appear once more.

Who? And where is the evidence for this? This is barely even a logical argument.

>either way you’re fucked

No, "you're" not because the definitions given for "you" so far are inept at best.

>>5560047
>Because "you" are a physical construct that ceases being "you" when "you" die
It's more logical to say that "you" doesn't exist because it isn't definitive.

>>5560047
>came into existence once that it can happen to that specific formulation again?
>specific

If not even oblivion prevented it then it's bound to happen again. It also doesn't have to be 1:1 identical, so specificity is irrelevant:
Whether one suffers as a dog with black hair or suffers as a human with blonde hair doesn't matter.

>Because "you" are a physical construct that ceases being "you" when "you" die.
>It didn't work for "me" at all because there was no "me"

Right. Even non-existence isn't sufficient protection from the Universe restructuring you.

>Exactly. A "NEW" machine. Which makes the "re" in "reincarnation" a meaningless tautology.

The machine will wear a different dress, and have different bells and whistles perhaps but it'll still be you there suffering, like you are now.

>Who? And where is the evidence for this? This is barely even a logical argument.

Passage of time depends on memory and point of view from a particular frame of reference.
You had no POV prior to birth so the passage of time is zero, instantaneous. Your next transition from death to life will also be unnoticeable. Simple.

>No, "you're" not because the definitions given for "you" so far are inept at best.
>hurr "YOU" hurr "you"

It doesn't matter what you are, the point is IT made you, IT knows how to make you, and nothing can protect you from IT, and nothing was able to protect you from IT, not even death, not even disintegration.

>but but but "MUH IDENTITY" is UNIQUE AND SPECIAL and "MUH GENETICS" LOL

What you call identity is a snake skin and a mirage. You will shed them and they will be nothing to you, and on and on you go.

>>5560086
>Whether one suffers as a dog with black hair or suffers as a human with blonde hair doesn't matter.

"One". You keep saying this but what are you referring to?

>>5560094

Any possible being who exists, suffers from their own point of view, ages, and is subject to birth and death. For example, Obama or you yourself or me or your parents, or your pets, or the cow I ate for dinner.

>>5559696

In the end most people don't say they rather wouldn't have been born. So you have a greater chance of them being happy with it, if you give them the chance.

Of course you'd also have to consider your own families history for mental problems and all other sorts of external circumstances. Sometimes because of the immediate situation you're bringing the child into, you higher risks of real issues that would dampen the ability to lead a happy, functional, independent life.

>>5559953
Let me address your second point directly:

This is not the case that being rich, or beautiful, or having sex with beautiful women makes you happy. This is speaking as someone who has done/is these things, and they in no way help against the overwhelming existential dread that we all hold.

When I was having sex with one of the most gorgeous girls I've seen in my life, I still thought of killing myself. Just as much as when I wasn't.

Life is suffering for all those involved, there may be shallow differences but fundamentally we all have that pain and your social/financial situation has nothing to do with it.

However, this does not mean we cannot conquer that dread, it just means that the typically sought after solutions do nothing.

Just go read The Conspiracy Against the Human Race already

>>5560333

Why? It promotes pessimism using baseless and illogical arguments while presenting misinformation about buddhism.

>>5560333
>Fag
A
F

>>5560001
Then how do I stop coming back?

How do Buddhists know they have the key to cease the life cycle?

>>5559335
This post. It's not that the world is inherently bad, but that it is chaotic. I have no idea what will or could happen to my children so it seems only fair not to have them. Not existing has never hurt anyone.

>>5560793
>I have no idea what will or could happen to my children so it seems only fair not to have them.

This is a perfectly fine limitation to put on yourself. Some people don't gamble even if the odds are 98% in their favor, they are too risk averse. Some people will gamble if the odds are only 51% in their favor.
But anti-natalists have no grounds to impose their values and their idiosyncracies on others. Makes no sense.

>>5560809
>But anti-natalists have no grounds to impose their values and their idiosyncracies on others.

Nor do natalists have any ground to do the same via childbirth.

>>5560793

>I have no idea what will or could happen to me tomorrow so it seems only fair to kill myself asap. Not existing has never hurt anyone.

>>5560809
Not really the same thing, I have no idea what the odds are to begin with.

>>5560822
No, killing myself would hurt other people and in the moments leading up to my death I would be petrified. Never having existed is different from dying.

I also have a somewhat good idea of what's going to happen to me, in the nearest future at the very least.

>>5560848
>No, killing myself would hurt other people and in the moments leading up to my death I would be petrified.

Your existence may also end up hurting and even killing other humans and other life forms. Your existence might turn chaotic and unbearable for yourself as well, that's the point you made about "chaos" you simply don't "know" the future.

With non-existence you get certainty, and you save yourself a potential horrible future, and you save yourself from hurting others intentionally or unintentionally.

Your decision to not have babies is based on the uncertainty of what the future can bring for them, yet it's not a problem for you yourself? Thus you are logically inconsistent like every antinat ever.

>>5558871
Actually, if you consider population growth, it might be possible to create a society filled with so much happiness it outweighs all the suffering which has ever existed.

Right now the dead outnumber the living by just short of a factor of 100, but if we were to create a Utopian society, and then encourage rapid population growth combined with immortality, we could create a society where the living outnumber the dead, and where all of them are on average enjoying being alive. At that point, happiness would outweigh suffering.

>>5560853
>yet it's not a problem for you yourself? Thus you are logically inconsistent like every antinat ever.

You completely misinterpreting an argument doesn't make the argument logically inconsistent.

>>5559669
your beliefs seem to stem from a hatred of women and your antinatalism is merely a corollary or accident of that base hatred

Antinat: never seeing is superior to seeing! if only no one could see!! how perfect it would be!! no horrors would ever be seen, if sight never existed!!

Nat: well why don't you close your eyes then?

Antinat: YOU IDIOT!!! I CAN ALREADY SEE AND I LOVE IT!!! HOW DARE YOU ASK ME TO GO BLIND!!! IT WOULD INCONVENIENCE MY PARENTS AND MY EMPLOYERS AND MYSELF!!!!!!!! YOU BAFOON!!!! BESIDES THAT'S NOT THE POINT!!! THE POINT IS TO NEVER HAVE SEEN FROM THE START!!! IT'S TOO LATE FOR ME!! I LOVE SIGHT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

days later...

Antinat: we must create a world where no one has ever seen and can ever see! perpetual darkness for all! darkness is superior to light, it never hurt anyone!!

>>5560869
How did you manage to see misogyny in that guy's post? Sounds like projection.

>>5560867

where is the misinterpretation exactly? :^)

>>5560875
This is simultaneously the most hilarious strawman and the worst analogy I've seen in a while.

>>5559871
>As if your material consciousness that ceases to be once you die is somehow spiritually connected to another consciousness somewhere down the line.

why is this such a wild concept to you? if particles can be connected across galaxies why shouldn't consciousness (which we know very little about)?

>>5560869
Good insight. My mother was... not kind. I've opened myself up to 6 women, from ages 16 to 25 (28 now). They all ended up shitting on it when the next best thing came around, and 2 made it their mission to fuck my life up.

Men have harmed me worse physically, but it was not nearly as painful.

>>5560885
Yes anon, and Satan planted dinosaur bones in the ground to trick us.

>>5560875

this guy

>>5559871
i always try to think of it like classes in programming: "you" are merely an instantiation of a class and enlightenment involves the deleting of that class altogether whereas being reborn is being reinstantiated as another object of that class

>>5560890

>im a shitty judge of character and go with loose women, ipso facto women are to blame.

>>5560900

how often do you yell "HACK THE PLANET" out car windows?

>>5560901
I never said it wasn't my fault anon.

But if it happens because of me or them doesn't matter. It happens and I suffer, so I will remain alone from now on.

>>5560907
>It happens and I suffer, so I will remain alone from now on.

You shouldn't listen to yourself, you obviously don't know how to make good decisions.

You should hang around me kid, I'll make a winner out of you.

>>5560913
haha yeah?

>>5560879
notice the contrast between the fears for a potential daughter and son: anon puts emphasis on the daughter possibly being a bad person or undesirable while the son is described in no terms of being a bad person but as having bad luck or circumstances. also, one of the "bad things" happens to be the son being accused of rape, which is not very common

it's interesting that that is used as an example for the son when the only concern for the daughter ignoring her possible wretchedness is that she might be raped. at least anon recognizes that rape is bad.

also, the idea that being a single mom and even a prostitute is similarly misogynist in that it reinforces the notion that a woman should belong to one man, if any, either legally or sexually

>>5560936
>also, the idea that being a single mom and even a prostitute is similarly misogynist in that it reinforces the notion that a woman should belong to one man, if any, either legally or sexually

No, it simply implies that being a single mother or a prostitute is a fairly regrettable situation for anyone. You can avoid shackling yourself legally and / or sexually to any one person without being a single parent or a prostitute.

Everyone needs to stop referring to 'natalism', as if that were a thing. It's fucking not. It's a retarded invention which basically means 'anyone who is not an anti-natalist', but unfortunately is also sometimes used to denote people actively in favor of procreation (for religious or other reasons). The problem is that this creates a false dichotomy. Just because I think that AN is retarded I am not a 'natalist', you retards.

>>5560947
>as if that were a thing. It's fucking not

Except it is.

>this creates a false dichotomy

No it doesn't.

>you retards

You seem upset. Toughen up, crybaby.

>>5560954
Okay, what is the coherent doctrine of natalism and who are it's chief proponents?

>>5560946
>No, it simply implies that being a single mother or a prostitute is a fairly regrettable situation for anyone.

no it does not, not when brought up in a parallel structure as in anon's post.

i only detected misogyny in the choice of words used to support that parallel structure. using such a parallel structure at all is a rather roundabout way of saying "bad stuff could happen to your children." what anon uses to fill this parallel structure is where the misogyny shows its influence in that it stresses the likelihood of a woman being a bad person while completely omitting that from the description of a man. anon mentions the daughter could be raped, but also that the son could be accused of rape. anon mentions the daughter could be murdered, yet chooses to leave out the possibility that the man could end up being a murderer or rapist or NEET or any other bad sort of person. i'm not saying that anon thinks that men cannot also be bad, just that his misogyny causes him to stress that women can be bad while leaving men in a neutral normative state where it is assumed that they can be bad without actually saying it. it's a pretty major bias.

>>5558713
:^)

>>5560969
>coherent doctrine
human procreation is a good or neutral phenomenon

>chief proponents
people who see procreation as good or neutral, "chiefly" people who procreate

>>5560969
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=natalism

>>5560974
Look I'm not going to defend the guy because he's already admitted to not liking women. But that doesn't mean antinatalism is a corollary of misogyny, and if that guy wants to use his misogyny to prop up his reason for choosing antinatalism then that's fine but it's entirely his problem. If anything antinatalism is an indicator of empathy and, at worst, over-empathy.

>>5560985
wow, so that's totally not an umbrella term for anyone who's not an antinatalist. Seems like you really read and understood my initial post! Good job.

>>5561008
What exactly are you having a hissy fit about? Do you or do you not see procreation as good or neutral?

>mommy mommy the big bad mean man called me a name!! :(

>>5560989
>>5561014
I am pointing out something relatively subtle here and you are probably not intelligent enough to understand it. The term 'natalism' is not a helpful term, because it only exists as a corollary to antinatalism and was most likely recently invented by antinatalists. However, it doesn't denote a school of thought, it merely means 'anyone who isn't an antinatalist'. By referring to an '-ism', you are pretending that there is something like a position, or a movement, or a series of ideas, when in fact you are merely erecting a big sign at the borders of antinatalism which indicates that everything else is natalism. The term is defined in a purely negative way, conceptually (not even an antagonism on the level of content, you don't have to actively be anti-AN to qualify as a natalist). It's a term that expresses almost nothing about those it is used to describe and a lot more about the person who uses it. Like saying 'cislord'.

>>5559267

>>5561039
>by referring to an '-ism', you are pretending that there is something like a position, or a movement, or a series of ideas, when in fact you are merely erecting a big sign at the borders of antinatalism which indicates that everything else is natalism.

Your angsty misrepresentation of the term has nothing to do with anything. It simply means someone who has a positive or neutral view of procreation, nothing else. Anything more you've managed to extrapolate out of that is a symptom of your own butthurt.

>WWAAHHHH you're not intelligent enough to understand my point

No, I understand your sentiment, and I also understand that you're getting upset at and making a huge deal out of a simple and clear delineation.

>It's a term that expresses almost nothing about those it is used to describe and a lot more about the person who uses it.

Wrong again. It expresses exactly one thing about those it is used to describe. Anything else you're tacking on to it is just baggage you're fabricating of your own accord.

>Like saying 'cislord'.

I assume you mean "shitlord"? I which case you're wrong again. Natalist isn't a derogative, it's a category.

>>5561059
>I assume you mean "shitlord"?
You assume wrong. 'Cislord' is what (false flag faux) transpeople call non-transpeople.

Bunpo

>>5560183
>So you have a greater chance of them being happy with it
No you don't. There's a greater chance of something bad happening than the other way around. If you want something bad to happen all you have to do is wait a while. If you want something good, you have to make it happen. That's why success is success.
Do you know how much people have to bullshit themselves in order not to go stark raving mad? That's what those facebook phrases are for.
besides, it ultimately doesn't matter. even if the chance of unhappiness were 0,01%, it still wouldn't be fair.

>>5560809
When people gamble they take a risk on themselves. People who give birth impose the risk they've taken on somebody else.

I like the following ones, from suicidetreatise blogspot

"1. Coming into existence is a sufficient and necessary condition for a person to die
2. To kill someone is to cause them to die
3. From 1 and 2, procreation kills people
4. People who don't exist cannot consent to coming into existence
5. It's wrong to kill an innocent person without their consent
6. From 3, 4, and 5, it's wrong to procreate"

Of course there's no convincing moral nihilists/emotivists but I see this argument as more of an extension of a moral intuition 99% of people do share but can't take to its logical conclusion or special plead when it comes to procreation.

If someone has a problem with this due to non-identity thesis, consider the following:

"An omnipotent killer robot is built that waits until everyone who is currently arrive is dead before carrying out an extermination of the people who came into existence after the creation of the robot. If the logic of the non-identity hypothesis holds, then we can informally show that the creation of this robot wasn't bad for anyone as follows:

1. The wrath of the killer robot is bad for someone.
2. If something is bad for someone, it would have been better for that something to not have happened to them.
3. The only way one could not have experienced the wrath of the killer robot was to never have come into existence, that wrath being a condition of their birth.
4. It would have been better for them not to have come into existence.
5. This contradicts the non-identity hypothesis.
6. The premise is false.
7. The wrath of the killer robot isn't bad for anyone.
8. The construction of the killer robot wasn't bad for anyone.

As far as I can tell, it's not possible to deny point two without undermining the non-identity hypothesis. Although the committed non-identity hypothesist would deny that it's bad to built such a genocidal robot, the above example serves as an exercise of how the hypothesis can be used to justify seemingly improbable situations."

Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them!

>>5562253
We want to take all of you with us though.

>>5560028
>ur just jealous of my jetpack xDDD

I hope you die reading in the paper that the technological developments you wish for are in fact invented, but it's just too late for you.

im waiting to make myself clear... just a sec

>>5558659
Buddhism.

>>5562211
>"1. Coming into existence is a sufficient and necessary condition for a person to die
2. To kill someone is to cause them to die
3. From 1 and 2, procreation kills people

I hope this blog is ironic.

>>5562933
If you have an actual response, let's hear it.

>>5562960
It's ridiculous enough to refute itself. Just stare at it for a while.

Oh, and I'm an anti-natalist.

>>5562970
Suppose 1, giving birth to someone is doing something that will inevitably lead to their death so 2, 3 necessarily follows.

>>5558659
Don't breed, society will use your offspring to perpetuate all the stupid things you see in the world today, and they won't be able to do anything to avoid it. As a parent, no matter how hard you try: they will become something that's out of control, except if you try hard enough to control them, which will backfire horribly. Plus, there's a huge chance they become as ugly and obnoxious as you when they grow up.

>>5562979
1 isn't true because coming into existence isn't a sufficient condition for something to die. I exist and I'm not dead. Existence doesn't kill people. Cancer does. Shotguns do. Influenza does. If existence killed people they would be dead the moment after they were born.

>>5563010
To die at some point, you can't die if you never existed in the first place and every single human being will die due to necessarily no other fact than that they simply exist.

>>5563010
It is sufficient because being born IMPLIES you will die.

>>5563020
>>5563021

No, you're both wrong because being born is not the thing that kills you. I'll say it again: you're both wrong. You're both stupid. You're both ignoring causality. That B follows A, that B occurs in a period of time after A, does not mean that A causes B. You're saying "you die after you're born, always, therefore being born causes you to die." Well, it doesn't. You're not born with a time bomb inside of you.

>>5563039
>being born is not the thing that kills you
Being born is what makes you alive. Being alive is what kills you. You only need to add one thing: time. No individuals of a certain species lives more than x time, no matter what.
>You're not born with a time bomb inside of you.
Of course not, cells don't die after a certain period of time and species don't start to age after a specific period of time according to their DNA. Hurrrrr

>>5563051
>Being alive is what kills you.
Nope, try again. It allows you to be killed, but it doesn't kill you. Try taking a logic 101 course.

>No individuals of a certain species lives more than x time, no matter what.
Ouch. That's an argument from induction. Doesn't matter. Being qua being does not necessarily lead to death. It just always has. Death is not an inherent property of being.

>Of course not, cells don't die after a certain period of time and species don't start to age after a specific period of time according to their DNA.
Bzzt wrong, try again. It is the aging of cells - not the act of being born - that leads to death. Being born does not necessarily imply that your cells with age to the point where you die, since it's conceivable that technologies could be invented to halt this.

Try to read some Hume. Or, read anything at all ;)

>>5563065
>since it's conceivable that technologies could be invented to halt this
It's not, since if all else fails all matter in the universe will be disintegrated to free-floating elementary particles some trillions of years from now. But feel free to continue being a pedantic asswipe.
>read Hume
We're living in 3rd millennia, m8, induction isn't a problem anymore.

>>5563075
>It's not, since if all else fails all matter in the universe will be disintegrated to free-floating elementary particles some trillions of years from now. But feel free to continue being a pedantic asswipe.
Doesn't matter. Being born doesn't cause the universe to disintegrate into elementary particles. Cause and effect is really difficult for you, isn't it?

>We're living in 3rd millennia, m8, induction isn't a problem anymore.
You're making an argument from logical necessity. You can't use empirical facts, asswipe.

>>5563081
>Being born doesn't cause the universe to disintegrate into elementary particles.
Being born necessarily leads to your inevitable destruction one way or another, be it cancer from posts like yours, a gunshot, or the heat death of the universe.
>You're making an argument from logical necessity.
I'm not, there's empirical necessity which anyone who isn't a pseudo-intellectual Hume fanboy accepts.

>>5563089
I just stopped taking that retard seriously.

>>5563089
>Being born necessarily leads to your inevitable destruction one way or another, be it cancer from posts like yours, a gunshot, or the heat death of the universe.
No it doesn't, because being born doesn't cause any of those things to happen. Why is it so hard for you? BEING BORN CAUSED ME TO EAT A CHICKEN SANDWHICH TODAY. BEING BORN CAUSED OBAMA TO BECOME PRESIDENT (because he became president after I was born). BEING BORN CAUSED BILL GATES TO GET RICH (because he got rich after I was born).

>I'm not, there's empirical necessity which anyone who isn't a pseudo-intellectual Hume fanboy accepts.
I haven't even read Hume, so try again. There's not an empirical necessity. You don't even know what that means.

>>5563099
I guess I'll have to take your advice.

>>5563110
>because being born doesn't cause any of those things to happen
Being born is what makes you vulnerable to all those things which just happen to be part of reality.

>>5563099
Why don't you two anti-natalist edgelords go get on the phone with your parents (or walk up the bsement stairs) and tell your parents that they've killed you. Then, call up the police and tell them that your parents have killed you. Why don't you two edgelords go press charges against your parents for killing you.

>>5563123
Oh look, another 18 year old who doesn't understand the distinction between "NECESSARY" and "SUFFICIENT."

>>5563120
I'll keep taking him further from a while to see what he gets at.

>>5563127
Why are you so angry and stupid?

>>5563130
All living beings are necessarily mortal. What do you think "mortal" means?

>>5563143
They've killed you right? They should be charged with a murder. What a nasty thing to do -- to kill an innocent person. Personally, I'd be outraged if I were you.

>All living beings are necessarily mortal. What do you think "mortal" means?
Mortal means that you're going to die eventually. But guess what? It's not being alive that kills you. It's cancer, influenza, niggers, car crashes, etc. None of those are directly caused by your being alive.

>>5563150
>They've killed you right?
No, I'm just programmed to die, since I'm alive. >They should be charged with a murder. What a nasty thing to do -- to kill an innocent person.
You don't understand the difference between murder and being mortal, but I'm not surprised.
>Personally, I'd be outraged if I were you.
No, you wouldn't. But that's nothing that's beyond the understanding of a mentally retarded person.

>Mortal means that you're going to die eventually.
If you're alive, you're NECESSARILY mortal. If you're not alive you are not mortal. End of my argument. Whatever that kills you, it doesn't matter, you just die given a period of time. Your cells are programmed to just stop being efficient enough one day (which can easily be shortened).

>>5563175
>But that's nothing
something*

>>5563175
>You don't understand the difference between murder and being mortal, but I'm not surprised.

This is what I'm arguing against:
>3. From 1 and 2, procreation kills people

Have you been reading the thread, or are you just another angry loser who's taken up anti-natalism as the final expression of self-loathing before suicide?

>f you're alive, you're NECESSARILY mortal. If you're not alive you are not mortal. End of my argument.
yep
>Whatever that kills you, it doesn't matter, you just die given a period of time. Your cells are programmed to just stop being efficient enough one day (which can easily be shortened).
But so what? being mortal doesn't kill you. Procreation doesn't kill people.

>>5558659
any argument in favor of antinatalism is always trumped by the fact that life arose on its own

>>5563196
any argument against potty training is always trumped by the fact that animals shit wherever they feel like shitting

>>5563191
>This is what I'm arguing against:
I don't care. It'as not what I said. There's a reason why I use a trip, even if you're not intelligent enough to understand its use.

>>5563191
>being mortal doesn't kill you
Being mortal means you will necessarily die:
>mid-14c., "deadly," also "doomed to die," from Old French mortel "destined to die; deserving of death," from Latin mortalis "subject to death, mortal, of a mortal, human," from mors (genitive mortis) "death," from PIE base *mer- "to die," with derivatives referring to death and human beings"
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=mortal

Being born makes you a living being, which implies you're a mortal.

I need to point out at how you're trying to insult me because you're affraid what I'm arguing for is an anti-natalist argument, but it isn't. I'm trying to explain a fact which isn't even an argument for or against natalism by itself. Do you want to hear my argument against natalism? YOU are a living example of it. The fact that people like you exist and that society allows them to propagate themselves and their stupidity is why I don't want to contribute to the existence of this society.

>>5563233
>I don't care. It'as not what I said. There's a reason why I use a trip, even if you're not intelligent enough to understand its use.
Then why are you talking to me? I've been arguing specifically against that point. You have nothing to say to me.

As for the rest:
Nope. Nope. Nope. Being mortal doesn't kill you. Name one example of a person who was killed by his mortality. I can't think of one, can you? I can think of people killed by shotguns, bombs, niggers, stupid posts (like yours), suicides, diseases, drowning, etc., but not a single person who died directly because of his mortality.

NECESSARY != SUFFICIENT

Let that sink in. Take a logic 101 course. Learn how to write a math proof. Being mortal is a necessary condition to be killed. Being mortal is a sufficient condition to die, but NOT to be KILLED.

no u

Natural selection is so deeply engrained in humans that the weak will refuse to even procreate. It's marvelous, really.

There is no valid argument to the position that existing is superior to not existing. The problem is that there is no valid argument to not existing either.

>>5563255
>Being mortal is a sufficient condition to die, but NOT to be KILLED.

My first post >>5563021
>It is sufficient because being born IMPLIES you will die.
In response to:
>coming into existence isn't a sufficient condition for something to die. I exist and I'm not dead.
From: >>5563010


Oh, sorry, I almost post before reminding you of your mental retardation.

>>5563292
>greentext
With blacktext
>more greentex and some numbers
in response to
>greentext
From: YOU

What the hell are you going on about now? Thank god you're never having children, because they'd grow up to be even worse than you. I'll make sure to have enough for the both of us.

>>5563300
I'm trying to explain you:
1 that you changed your definitions to fit your argument when proven bullshit.
2 that you're retarded.

>>5563020
if shotguns kill people how come people don't die the moment a shotgun is in their vicinity?

>>5563320
Ooops I blundered so what. From "literally" the beginning of this conversation I've been saying that procreation doesn't kill people. Why are you talking to me if you're not talking about that? Nothing else to do? Don't got a girlfriend so no one else can have one because of suffering or something? Why are anti-natalists so fixated on death being a bad thing when they all wind up killing themselves? "Don't have children because they always die and dying is bad, but hold on I'm going to hang myself."

Oh no mommy a scary NEET called me retarded on a japanese image board I hope that doesn't negate my grades and my test scores and gee well everything else!

>>5563343
>being this asshurt for being called out
Don't start flinging poo, now.

>>5563343
lol just look at this faggot.

>>5563381
>>5563384

Called out for what? For being the only sensible person here? For realizing that A following B doesn't mean that B caused A? /lit/ is truly filled with 18 year olds.

>>5563127
>anti-natalist
>edgelords

AN is the opposite of edgy. If anything you're the edgy one. Go tip your fedora elsewhere please.

>>5563391
Well, it sure was hard for you to understand. What I just proved is how your rationality was left behind by your rage when arguing about this. Natalists get butthurt as fuck when someone argues about natinatalism. This tells a lot about natalists and antinatalists, and why everyone defends what he does.

>>5563417
I'm an anti-natalist.

>>5563343
>Ooops I blundered so what

>>5563343
>>5563300

this idiot and his retarded posts are providing a much better case for antinatalism than anything posited in this thread

>>5563437
The guy I was talking to jkust before you posted, than. I thought you were the same person. And we were talking about implications, not causes.

>>5563471
I am that guy. You were never talking with a natalist. Were we most definitely talking about causality, because I started the conversation with causality, although you jumped in and strawmanned.

>>5558672
>uses awesome twice in two sentences
>will eventually procreate

if only i had never been born

>>5560314
of course, an ubermensch lurking in 4chan (in /lit/ specially).

>>5564460
everyone on 4chan is a fat kissless loser just like me!

ayy lmao

>>5564466
look, another ubermensch. and this one is edgy

just tell them you're in a bad mood

it's that simple

>>5564473
>complaining about edgy shit
>on 4chan

ayy lmao

Which vodka do you antinatalists drink? I drink Russian Standard because Russia has the highest abortion rates, the lowest birth rates and the most aids in Europe. God tier country.

>>5564596
the lifestylebranding of antinatalism *rubs nose* my God

>>5564611
Want to take a shot with me? It makes you less potent and we have sterile qts.

A syllogism.

All life is my life. My life sucks. All life sucks.

>>5564950
Your life does suck, you're just either dishonest or too stupid to realize it yet.

>>5564596
>Projecting your philosophy as a lifestyle dogma

>>5564961
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

>>5563481
I thought we were just talking about the diference between sufficient and necessary conditions and that you backpedaled like a pro.
What strawman? I quoted exactly your contradiction, that's not a strawman.

>>5559246
i think it is possible for most people

>>5563391
This guy is the only one left in this thread making a logical argument, frankly.

>>5559102
Is this supposed to be a serious criticism of anti-natalism or is it just trolling?

>>5568350
There doesn't need to be a serious criticism of anti-natalism. No one cares or takes you idiots seriously. We don't want to read your blog posts about how lyf iz payn. Go listen to linkin park and kill yourselves so your poor parents can live their lives again.

>>5568361
AKA "I got no argument against anti-natalism but I'll pretend one isn't necessary".

It should be a crime to bring new life to a broken world.

I can't wait for you, the widdle natalist baby to start crying again.

>>5558659
I fucking hate children.

>>5568390
My life is not bad. It's not perfect, but I would not wish to be "unborn". I have the capacity to raise children in a first-world society who will have a great chance at the maximum amount of happiness the world has to offer. Their lives won't be perfect either, but I have always been able to see the good outweighing the bad, and I've never even been an optimist.
If you shitlords have such terrible lives, kill yourselves. You say it would just cause more suffering, but if you could read your dumbfuckery from my point of view you would know that is not true.
We evolved to procreate, despite the moral ramifications. The fact you don't want to makes you genetically inferior, not intelligent. See a shrink, you edgy fucks.

>>5568424

>>5568424
>We evolved to procreate

Rather, those that survive and procreate, are more likely to pass on the genes for surviving and procreating. There is no teleos in evolution, or evolving 'for a reason'.

>>5568390
I don't know what you believe you are doing, you ridiculous retard. Anti-natalism is inherently idiotic. If you have ruined yourself with rhetoric and spend your life whining about itself on 4chan then that is your perogative. Nobody gives a shit if you think you "proved" something here today, you dickless fucking pissant. You will still be a sad, pointless, moron who is horrible at acting sarcastic, and the world will remain as is. Every moment you spend being a fat pathetic shitstain on your computer is YOUR FAULT, and no one elses. If you hate being alive, quite simply kill yourself. Nobody wants to listen to you whine, and you aren't going to "convert" anyone with your le epic reasoning.

>>5568475

>>5568496
Yes, exactly. That's all anti-natalism is, a bunch of crying and bitching. 'Waaaah life sucks, I'm so dark and brooding, if I can't have kids then no one should, I'm gonna go post on /r9k/" etc. Nobody gives a shit, kill yourself.

>>5568505

>>5558659

There is no convincing argument.

You can never convince anybody of anything, especially on the internet.

We don't come here to be convinced.

We come here to batter innefectually each-other with our flaccid e-penises for all eternity.

>>5568525

>>5568505

>>5568542

>>5568545

>>5568559

>>5568575
This is getting a tad ridiculous, g'night.

>>5568424
>We evolved to procreate, despite the moral ramifications. The fact you don't want to makes you genetically inferior, not intelligent. See a shrink, you edgy fucks.

Why do people who know nothing about biology decide to speak about it authoritatively?

Also

>calling antinatalism edgy

cannot stop laughing

>>5568595
Are you really this mad that people don't agree with your retarded anti-life whining? Wow.

>>5568606
>whining
>retarded

You can continue displaying that AN makes you feel uncomfortable. It's not doing anything but making you look very upset

>>5568616
Le epic. It's almost le epic enough to make people forget the entire basis of anti-natalism is bitching. Responding to this thread anymore is pointless. Do consider killing yourself though. Honestly.

>>5568424
>We evolved to procreate, despite the moral ramifications. The fact you don't want to makes you genetically inferior, not intelligent.

>living being is good enough at being sentient to go through his instinct
>get called genetically inferior and not intelligent for doing so
Also:
>you edgy fucks.
edgy people from the past built our world by creating new concepts that were at first hated by the majority, you're digging your own grave by using such words that aren't even insults.

>>5568616
You're arguing with a different person, dingleberry. And unless your occupation happens to be "biologist", don't try to lecture me on it. I also doubt highly that you're laughing. Most likely you're crying, alone and bursting with existential dread in your mom's unfinished basement.

>>5568643
You have done nothing but bitch, complain, and use buzzwords this entire thread. It's obvious AN makes you extremely uncomfortable that you would need to lash out with such anger instead of just ignoring it like a person who is supposedly well-adjusted would do

Stay mad

>>5568645
>edgy isn't an insult

Hi, welcome to 4chan.

>>5568647
>so upset he quotes the wrong person
>he thinks everyone who is remotely antinatalist is a loser who lives with their mother

Your hilarious projection aside, I'd bet my life savings I'm more successful than anyone in this thread projecting their own failures onto antinatalists. Too hard for you to honestly engage the argument so you start making assumptions about the person who makes the argument. Unfortunately reality doesn't always agree, and not everyone on 4chan is a basement dweller like yourself.

>>5568643
>Le epic. It's almost le epic enough to make people forget the entire basis of anti-natalism is bitching.

welcome to the world, capitalism is supported by a bunch of retards that keep saying "muh freedom", socialism and communism are supported by a bunch of retards that keep saying "muh equality" and far right ideologies are supported by a bunch of retards that keep saying "muh nation/race", the whole world is just different groups of people bitching to get what they want and it has been so since the beginning of mankind.

>>5568643
>Le epic. It's almost le epic enough to make people forget the entire basis of anti-natalism is bitching.

so i guess bitching about people bitching must make you like a double-ply retard to the second power

>>5568656
>WAAAAAHHHHH DON'T CALL ME STUPID WAAAAHHHHH

hahahahahaha

>>5568663
just look at history, every people that are praised now were at first hated by conservatives of their time and more or less called edgy, no matter how much of an insult it can be it's just the proof that one isn't a retard that is unable to imagine anything beyond his time.

>>5568697
That's not even the point. Calling a moral proposition that rests entirely on a foundation of extreme empathy "edgy" is the height of stupidity and anyone who thought about it for more than 5 seconds would realize how stupid they sound for calling it that.

>>5568695
>>WAAAAAHHHHH DON'T CALL ME MAD WAAAAHHHHH

hahahahahaha

>>5568712
even though it rests on empathy it's pretty authoritarian, which could make it "edgy", even more now in an era in which anything that privates citizens from a freedom ,no matter how useless that freedom is, is considered more or less violent. Also "edgy" can be used for ideologies that most people consider abnormal, in that case antinatalism could be considered "edgy"

the most convincing argument for antinatalism is that it's either the end of consumption society or the beginning of antinatalism, but that's an argument that only works on certain people who prefer consumption society over reproduction, which is already enough people since it would surely convince most of china.

>>5568718
Look at how happy salad man is. Do you think he is anti-life? You should try to emulate salad eating man.

>>5560900
I thought enlightenment implied you (as an instance) had access to a larger scope

>>5568796
salad man was actually eaten alive by a bear the other day

it took him 3 hours to die

>>5563343
>I've been saying that procreation doesn't kill people.
It's literally the one and only thing that does.

>>5568842
lrn2logic

>>5568897
All people who die are the result of procreation. It's as simple as that.

>>5568897
lrn2logic b4 telling other ppl lrn2logic

>>5568828
Do not make light of bears around me, you fucking shitlord.

I think I understand, so antinatalism is preventing bad things that may or may not happen (but since AN is pessimistic then it is bound to happen, no, maybe living itself is horrible or some shit) by not having kids to experience them, and also because dying is bad and by not being alive you cannot die.
It still doesn't convinces me, but it doesn't matter because I'm not even going to be able to reproduce either way.

>>5559121
muh dick

Haven't seen much reference to anti-natilist scholars in this thread yet, so here goes. The two big arguments:

1. David Benatar's argument in "Better Never to Have Been"
Some amount of suffering is inevitable upon being born. The absence of suffering is a moral good whereas the absence of happiness is not a moral evil. Therefore existence is always worse than non-existence.

2. Ligotti's argument in "The Conspiracy Against the Human Race"
There is a fundamental cognitive dissonance between our belief of consciousness and free-will and the reality of our existence. To quote Ligotti, 'Conciousness has forced us into the paradoxical position of striving to be unself-conscious of what we are - hunks of spoiling flesh on disintegrating bones.' Therefore, Ligotti concludes that the only way to escape this inherent contradiction is to cease existing.

>>5569475
2 is actually Zapffe's argument from The Last Messiah which Ligotti paraphrased.

>>5558871
>birthday parties

M8 if birthday parties are the highlight of your life you're doing life wrong.

>>5563255
Have you been diagnosed with any mental disabilities? If not you should probably sue your doctor. This is a perfect argument for antinatalism. Do you really want people like this to exist?

>>5571092
That's the worst part. Retards like that will procreate and make retard babies and the cycle will just continue.

>>5563468
>>5571092
>argumentum ad hominem

>>5571119
almost every single post ITT arguing against AN has been ad hominem

>>5560821
btfo

Anti-natalism and suicide are the last true taboos. Literally everything else is discussed on the internet, but the second either of those are brought up they are met with an array of insults and derision. Guess that proves will to live is the strongest innate, irrational biological desire.

Why would anyone want to destroy all life?
It is goddamn art. Does beauty only come from creation? I think not. Destruction is equally as beautiful. And when you destroy one thing, you make another.

This universe is a masterpiece of art; with God it's sculptor.

>>5571124
AN rests upon the precipitous position of telling you your life sucks regardless of whether or not you think so, which is as retarded as telling someone their life is happy regardless of whether or not they think they're happy.

>>5571267

>hey guys, I have a brilliant idea, why don't we end our species? ^_^;

Why?

>because [irrational and incoherent arguments based on my preferences]

That makes no sense at all, I mean if you want to not have children fine, but your argument doesn't convince anyone else.

>See! Anti-natalism is truly a taboo people aren't willing to face!

>>5571271
>AN rests upon the precipitous position of telling you your life sucks regardless of whether or not you think so
Nah not really. Even if life was a 24/7 orgasm on speed with your every wish fulfilled before you even knew how to ask for it for eveyr single person alive, existence still wouldn't be net positive over never existing in the first place.

>>5571274
put that stawmnan out, you'll burn the whole house down

>>5571275

>Non-existence is superior to existence, in all possible cases!!!

Please enter non-existence if you believe this.

>Typical, you're suggesting I commit suicide? How DARE you ad hominem me?!

I wasn't ad homineming you, but if non-existence trumps existence in all possible cases, then logically you should enter it as fast as possible, even if heaven opened up to you in one hour from now, you should refuse and kill yourself before you enter!

>No no no no, you don't get it, it's too late, now that I'm born, life IS worth living

What don't I get, why is existence worth living once you are in it?

>Because it would uhh inconvenience my parents and it is SCARY to kill yourself

So? Non-existence trumps all possible forms of existence, scary, heaven, fun, mean, etc...logically you SHOULD want it and SEEK it.

>b...but, no...just stop having kids lol

>>5571271
>AN rests upon the precipitous position of telling you your life sucks regardless of whether or not you think so

The funny thing is they don't believe this; they love their life and wish to preserve it at all costs.

It's only additional beings they wish to prevent from existing. Why? We can never know. I guess they want life all to themselves?

>>5571284
Are you really this stupid or is this something merely you amuse yourself with?

>>5563381
>>5563384
>>5563409
>>5563417
>>5563449
>>5566739
>>5568842
>>5568927
>>5568928
>>5571092
>>5571096
holy fuck i have never been this flustered because of something i've seen on the internet before
it's refreshing
you people are so fucking stupid and so certain of your correctness
my god

what the fuck is hard to understand about what that guy way saying. my 14 year old little brother could understand this shit.
BEING BORN DOES NOT KILL YOU
BEING BORN IS NECESSARY TO DIE, BUT IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO DIE
THEREFORE, BEING BORN DOES NOT KILL YOU
the one person who was arguing the correct side of this point didn't argue it well enough but shit you would have thought that the supposedly intelligent people of /lit/ would have seen the error of their thinking and left it alone
why the fuck is that trip a trip honestly kill yourself please
the most frustrating thing is seeing idiots being so certain of something they are obviously wrong about

>inb4 someone has the nerve to tell me i'm wrong
fuck you
>inb4 umad
yes i am
>inb4 edgy teenager
sure

>>5571275
Do you not believe in subjective value? If so, then did you at least take the trouble to formulate an extensive theory to validate your idea of the value of life, like Marx did with labor?

>>5571294

>>5571284
Were you writing this post with the expectation to have it taken seriously?

>>5571295
Benatar addresses this in his book, start there.

>>5571294

>>5571299
>Benatar argues from the uncontroversial premise that pain is, in itself, a bad thing.[3]
Does he just assume pain per se is inherently bad, or does he make an argument for that?

>>5571293

>guys, listen *nom nom nom* DON'T LET YOUR KIDS EAT CAKE!! EVER!! *nom nom nom*

Why is that??

>trust me *mmmhhmm nom* it's AWFUL!! *mmm* the NET POSITIVE RETURN of not-eating cake will always trump EATING-CAKE!! It's simple logic, a professor has a proof about it in a book!

Why don't you stop stuffing your face with it then? You're actually quite fat.

>TYPICAL AD HOMINEM!!! LOL NATALISTS WHEN WILL *BURP* LEARN!!! *FART*
>YOU CAN'T DISCUSS THIS WITHOUT MAKING A STRAW MAN *NOM NOM NOM* CAN YOU?! *FART* *MMMM SO GOOD* NET POSITIVE!!!!

>>5571304
maybe you should read it and find out faggot

>>5571302
way to perpetuate the incorrect use of that meme

>>5571305
>>5571294
I think this is the maddest I've ever seen someone on /lit/

>>5571307
I'm not going to bother if I strongly disagree with a premise that isn't argued. If he actually argues that premise, maybe I'll read it, but otherwise it would be like reading Norman Vincent Peal without first agreeing God exists.

>>5571302
but hey at least you got to use that really cool image you saved last night

>>5571307
You are an idiot.

>>5571311
>>5571314

>>5571316
>reading's for fags!!

why are you even on this board

Peoples reaction when I tell them I don't wanna have a child because I don't wanna be responsible for someone coming into existence is hilarious.
I'm not even hardcore or anything, I just say "I can't know if my child will like his/her life or end up as a depressed unhappy loser."

People treat me differently after I tell them this. Like I'm insane or something.

>>5571326
Because people are too wrapped up in their own ideology and biological programming to ever stop and think about anything other than themselves.

>>5571326
it's a pretty weird thing for most people to get their heads around
after all, anti-natalism is against the natural attitude towards procreation evolution has given us
from that perspective, you are insane, i guess

>>5571326
>Like I'm insane or something.
As they should. Antinatalism is on the extreme part of the gnostic cult spectrum, you're in the good company of some prime-rate historical crazies.

Even if you're not an empathetic person and / or you're too dumb to understand Schopenhauer's argument, it's self-evident that children are an enormous waste of time, money, energy, and resources. To have children in today's age is a shit investment and a gamble, and it if anything it makes you a bad businessman. Not to mention you're just providing another battery for capitalism.

>>5571326
because it makes people uncomfortable to reflect upon the fact that they are an appendage for their own germplasm

they become uneasy when they have to consider why they have a desire to procreate, or why they do anything really

"ignorance is bliss" is an adage for a reason

>>5571334
>AN
>gnostic cult

you might want to stop using words you don't understand

>>5571274
>Why?

Because as our numbers rise the numbers of other animals diminish?
Because we're destroying the planet?
Because non-existence is objectively superior to existence?

I'm not sure I'm a supporter of anti-natalism as much as population control.

>>5571305
this is actually pretty good. Antinatalists are the bronies of philosophy.

>>5571340
>too dumb to understand Schopenhauer's argument

>Whoever wants summarily to test the assertion that the pleasure in the world outweighs the pain, or at any rate that the two balance each other, should compare the feelings of an animal that is devouring another with those of that other.

A brilliant argument, indeed! Totally not cherrypicking anything here!

>>5571492
>Because as our numbers rise the numbers of other animals diminish?
>Because we're destroying the planet?
>Because non-existence is objectively superior to existence?
Sounds like we're doing the rest of the planet a favour by killing it ;^)

According to your claims, humanity is like a bodhisattva who, despite knowing about the superiority of non-existence, continues to exist in order to bestow the gift of non-existence on the rest of the planet. What a selfless gesture, you bleeding heart antinatalists should be proud!

>>5571526
Do you really believe that other forms of life are capable of questioning their existence?

Life is beautiful, but no more so than death. Death is beautiful because it is everything and nothing. We cannot know beauty, but nor can we know suffering. Death is non-existence. By the nature of the concept we are not 'missing' anything through not having existed. We are not even 'we'.

Alive, we question, where we should simply 'be'. We are capable of questioning but hold no answers. 'Why do we suffer?' we cry. 'Why do we hurt?'.

Life, for us, is at once our greatest gift and greatest curse. For it is everything. It is you and me, and him and her. It is this conversation. It is yesterday's joy, and tomorrow's pain. This is existence. Naturally, the absence of such is incomprehensible from our perspective 'of'.

Non-existence is superior because of it's nature and nothing more. It is not 'better to have lived than not', because, despite having existed, we, none of us, have and will never have existed. Existence merely is. Non-existence is not.

However, this and everything I have said, and will say is irrelevant. Irrelevant to what? Non-existence. Non-existence is the hole, non-existence is the void. Non-existence is the whole. We 'live' to that end and no other. My conjecture neither proves nor disproves that. As does yours. We are a mishmash of particles emitting hot air. Humanity is absurd. Our ability to question is what, if we had/have a creator, would be considered a mistake, or perhaps a cruel joke.

To me it is not so much a question of physical suffering, or even emotional, but existential. What in the annals of humanity hasn't happened because man has at some point or other questioned 'why'?

Other life is 'free' in that regard. I say let them be so at our expense.

>>5571643
>Do you really believe that other forms of life are capable of questioning their existence?
This has nothing to do with my post (or the arguments for AN), so it doesn't matter.
>Life is beautiful, but no more so than death.
Why do you think anyone wants to read your inane ramblings?
>Death is beautiful because it is everything and nothing. We cannot know beauty, but nor can we know suffering.
This sounds like the shit a highschooler would write in someone's poetry album, or post on facebook when their grandmother or dog dies.

>>5571703
>This has nothing to do with my post

Yes it does anon, albeit in a round about way. You were suggesting that humanity was doing the rest of life a service by diminishing it. I know you were being facetious, but I took that as starting point for my response. I then went on to explain why I think non-existence is preferable to existence which is a central point to the anti-natalist argument. It's all there. I suggest you read the entirety of my post before dismissing it completely.

>Why do you think anyone wants to read your inane ramblings?

I suggested as much in my post. Anyway, why do we do anything at all?

You seem angry anon, what's the problem? Emotion only serves to blind you. You should strive to remove that when in discussion.

>>5571294
>BEING BORN IS NECESSARY TO DIE, BUT IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT FOR YOU TO DIE
It actually is since bodies simply wear out.

The causal relationship becomes extra clear when you stop birthing people. Mortality rates will drop 100%, guaranteed. Birth is the one single deciding factor in death, the other causes are secondary and optional.

>>5571643
>'Why do we suffer?' we cry. 'Why do we hurt?'.
Speak for yourself, you whiny twat.

>>5571643
>Life, for us, is at once our greatest gift and greatest curse. For it is everything.
Oh really? Your post is outstanding in its remarkable banality. The short, proclamative sentences about 'deep' issues of existence etc., are so incredibly vacuous and inane, it's really quite something.

Your post is like air escaping a balloon.

>>5571522
>basing schopenhauer's case on your wikiquote explorations

>>5571833
is there really more to it?

>>5568350
Serious. Wouldn't you say it's more consistent?

>>5571844
Yes, like a whole philosophical system to back up his pessimism.

>>5571855
>Yes, like a whole philosophical system to back up his pessimism.
but isn't it bullshit, like all philosophy?

>>5571859
Only one way to find out, friend.

>>5571348
>you might want to stop using words you don't understand
Google and read 'The Socialist Phenomenon', please. It's an easily digestible introduction to religious history, maybe you won't be so stupid after reading it.

>>5571795
At no point did I claim what I was saying was original or insightful. Indeed, "The short proclamative sentences about 'deep' issues of existence etc." -- again at no point did I suggest the topic or my relations to the topic were in anyway momentous or insightful, or even use the word 'deep' at all, so I really don't know why you are using quotation marks here -- and their style thereof, were merely an expression of my thought process. I'm not sure why you have ascribed to them 'proclamation'. I was expressing my opinion on the matter, nothing more. Should I waver with 'maybes' and 'what ifs'? Should I precede all of my opinions with the following disclaimer: 'ALERT! ATTENTION ALL READERS, MY COMMENTS ARE BASED ON OPINION AND IS ENTIRELY SUBJECTIVE!!'? It's actually beside the point anyway because not only did I _not_ profess to thinking I was shitting gold as I wrote that post, but I alluded to such within the text.

Anyway I'm sure you have something incredibly insightful yourself to say on the subject having thoroughly lambasted my attempts. In fact, instead of wasting your time by responding to the tune of 'you're an idiot', why not attempt to explain why this time?

EDIT: Can I offer a hypothesis? I think that because of the medium of communication you are applying a tone and voice to my post that is contrary to the one I used when writing it. Having just read it back I can see how it might be taken as arrogant or, indeed, overly self-indulgent ('proclamative' - kek). That's not the case, as I stated earlier, the style was merely a consequence of my thinking it through as I wrote - in a brain-spill manner. I wasn't trying to state these things as fact.

POST-EDIT:
>inb4 autism for excessively long responses.
I just ain't got fuck all to do today man.

>>5571880
>why socialists are baddies, by orthodox christian under stalin

kek

Antinatalism is just a preference like appreciating vanilla icecream. Like all preferences, it's ultimately impossible to argue for or against it.

>>5571917
>In fact, instead of wasting your time by responding to the tune of 'you're an idiot', why not attempt to explain why this time?

Okay, let's adress the main point first: You are basically shifting the terms of the antinatalist argument towards our ability to question existence. It seems that you think existence is kind of okay (for animals, e.g.) as long as you cannot question it.

Even if I accept that the technical ability to question the meaning of life is the cause of ill-feeling (as opposed to genetics, upbringing and the state of your digestion and other physiological factors), your shift from the more 'emotional' or 'phenomenological' arguments for pessimism towards what you call 'existential(ist)' (I am unsure as to how accurate and helpful this term is, I suspect it might be a misnomer) does not in any way strengthen your position viz a viz the general criticisms of antinatalistm, which revolve around incommensurability, category errors involved in comparisons (being and nonbeing), and the extrapolation of personal experience to include the entirety of mankind, both actual and potential. (it's an okay-ish move against my post about animals, but that's a waste of energy because a) I was really being 'facetious' and b) I was arguing against a different position, so the move you are making does not in fact adress my post as attempt a switch-and-bait).

>>5572020
>Antinatalism is just a preference like appreciating vanilla icecream. Like all preferences, it's ultimately impossible to argue for or against it.
No. Antinatalism is like saying EVERYONE SHOULD LOGICALLY PREFER VANILLLA AND IF YOU DON'T YOU ARE A BAD PERSON.

>>5572076
And that's just another preference in itself, just like the notion that people are entitled to their own opinions is merely another preference. As Hume said, tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.

>>5572119
have you been tested? One is a stated personal preference, the other is an exhortation to others to adopt a certain position.

>>5572152
Ironically, your fault is that you want to apply your liberal principles universally and that is why you divide preferences between 'liberally allowed' and 'liberally transgressing against other people's rights under liberalism'.

There is no essential difference between the preference for ice cream and the preference for the whole world to perish. That difference is only created against the backdrop of your preferred ideology.

>>5572185
>Ironically, your fault is that you want to apply your liberal principles universally and that is why you divide preferences between 'liberally allowed' and 'liberally transgressing against other people's rights under liberalism'.
>There is no essential difference between the preference for ice cream and the preference for the whole world to perish. That difference is only created against the backdrop of your preferred ideology
wow, you are really retarded.
a) i'm not liberal
b) the difference between a preference for X and a preference for Y is one of content. The difference between a preference for X and a discourse that claims to show that X is the only morally acceptable choice is not on of content, but of form.

Antinatalism is not merely a preference for nonprocreation, but the claim that nonprocreation is the only morally acceptable course of action. How, HOW did you not understand this when I used your example of vanilla icecream?


>>5572076
>No. Antinatalism is like saying EVERYONE SHOULD LOGICALLY PREFER VANILLLA AND IF YOU DON'T YOU ARE A BAD PERSON

>>5572308
Holy mongoloid, Batman.
>Antinatalism is a philosophical position that assigns a negative value to birth, standing in opposition to natalism.
Where's the deontological part?

>>5572371
>Where's the deontological part?
a) nice wikipedia quote
b) a deontological assessment of procreation follows directly from the value assigned to birth
c) different kinds of ethics are almost entirely convertable into each other (virtue into deontology, etc.).

>>5572397
A) le sarcastically attacking the source red herring
B) Wrong, and
C) Wrong.

>>5572308
You're picking one particular justification of antinatalism and claiming that as the only one. Antinatalism is simply the preference for nonprocreation, reasons and justifications may differ.

Even if we're to go with that particular kind, 'vanilla icecream is the best because it's most delicious' isn't any different from 'nonprocreation is the best because it's most moral'. It's still mere preference.