[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports / report a bug ] [ 4plebs / archived.moe / rbt ]

2022-11: Warosu is now out of maintenance. Become a Patron!

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
View page     

[ Toggle deleted replies ]
File: 2.39 MB, 576x1024, 1596493479433.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16070947 No.16070947 [DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Also about breeders' selfishness and cruelty.

>> No.16070951

This is why every single culture in existence used to practice eugenics.

>> No.16070973

the baby will be fine bc it is female

>> No.16070986

You said I shouldn't do something so I'll prove you wrong by doing it.

>> No.16071000

That's so cruel of her. What's her TIK Tok, I want to read the comments?

>> No.16071009

Woah Nietzsche was right the Overman is here

>> No.16071025
File: 40 KB, 800x450, pepefroggie.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

First and foremost: Let me make myself perfectly clear.

I am not an anti-natalist, nor do I discriminate against disabled people. I believe wholeheartedly that they can live fulfilling lives and contribute to society. However, the fact of the matter is that no one chooses to be born. And, in many cases, no one chooses to have a disability. If you willingly bring a child into this world, armed with the knowledge that they will suffer not only disproportionately to a fully-abled child, but they will most likely suffer the same way that you once have. If you make a choice to birth a child like this, you are simply a cruel egoist who rides off their own emotions without thinking about future consequences. Just adopt someone jfc.

>> No.16071030

Fun Fact: The US used to run a eugenics project in the early 1900's they never talk about. This program actually inspired the Nazi eugenics program.

>> No.16071041

It was rebranded into Planned Parenthood. You didn't think it was a coincidence that every single black neighborhood has one did you?

>> No.16071051

Man no matter what a black looks like they have to shimmy and reproduce. Kinda based

>> No.16071061

>did not kill themselves yet

>> No.16071081

You have no idea how glad I am Trump is banning this degenerate app. Possibly second only to twitter in terms of being an incubator for social corrosion and the absolute worst of human nature.

>> No.16071092

Do we know who the husband/father is?

>> No.16071098

Somebody fucked that thing to completion. Being a woman really is living life on easy mode, huh?

>> No.16071107

Jaysus, normies are actually subhuman. What an immensely unethical thing to do, and the indignation she has too, as if she thinks the people who told her not to are some malevolent force that needs to be righteously rebelled against. What the actual duck is wrong with people.

>> No.16071125

Someone really blind or really drunk.

>> No.16071139

She just got sperm from a sperm bank dumbass, you know that exists?

>> No.16071153

Antinatalism is totally different to antihumanism

>> No.16071156

source: dude, trust me. I actually find it more believable that there's a dude out there that's desperate enough for a smidgen of pussy that he would do it

>> No.16071179

And where is your source? I choose to believe my source, me

>> No.16071186

guarnteed she's a socialist

>> No.16071189

>the nazi
Oh no.

>> No.16071265

Puerto Ricans know about it very well. To hell with social engineering! To hell with abortion, contraception, homosexuality, prositution, masturbation, sex before marriage, etc...
Not everyone is called to be a mother. I believe in the idea that 50% of the human population should be celibate monks. Obviously, if you have genetic disorders, you ought to just become a monk. Human sexuality can be conquered with discipline, anyone who says otherwise, is a literal animal

>> No.16071280

If she used a sperm bank, she'd be to spend at least a thousand dollars in purchasing the hormones, injections for her body, and sperm insertion equipment. Whereas getting a guy to fuck her is free

>> No.16071287

To expand on the Puerto Rico situation:

This project was opposed by the based "Partido Accion Cristiana" whose party platform was literally: no contraception, and religous education. Now...that party lost. And guess what, did American Eugenics solve the Puerto Rico problem? No, really, did you eugenics problem solve anything at all? Create a healthier populace? ABSOLUTELY NOT GO LOOK AT OUR STREETS! Involuntary eugenics and or contraception rather than abstinence-based eugenics results in more aberrations as it is a disgrace to GOD!

>> No.16071290
File: 91 KB, 800x1198, IMG_20200807_161630.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Did he get glasses before or after fucking her?

>> No.16071299

*pro religious education

>> No.16071313

Now I think I understand that one part of Growth of the Soil

>> No.16071322

>murdering a child because of a literal hare-lip
Imbecile. Even if that did cause suffering, suffering is not the greatest evil in the world. For if it were, pleasure would be the greatest good, and it certainly ISN'T!

>> No.16071342

What is the greatest good then?

>> No.16071350


>> No.16071355

Going through life as a genetic freak, apparently

>> No.16071365
File: 31 KB, 550x503, 1590240675228.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

how the fuck she is any different from natalists?
over-evovled apes are also sick with the mental disease know as "consciousness" but they still go ahead and have kids.
natalists have no fucking right to criticize her.

>> No.16071366

>suffering is not the greatest evil in the world
What is then?

>> No.16071377


>> No.16071385

That's a very simple question: injustice. High-order goods such as compassion, charity, righteous indignation require evil/injustice to exist

>> No.16071390

If I worked in a sperm bank I would refuse her and call other sperm banks and insist they do the same

>> No.16071395

There is literally no reason for a sperm bank to exist

>> No.16071402


>> No.16071403


Anyone up for adoption is typically useless. With few exceptions they are all fucked in the head. If you can have a marriage and raise a family in a healthy way, you're better off just having a kid yourself. The genes passed to the child will be better than whatever crap the oprhanage is pushing out.

>> No.16071408

My mother recieved me with sperm from a spermbank.

>> No.16071411

>Suffering is not the greatest evil. For if it were, pleasure would be the greatest good
Non sequitur

>> No.16071431

Yeah generally most adopted kids are from broken families and ones with bad underlying genetics, especially wither kinds of genetics that predispose people towards degenerate behaviour.
I like when I see a successful adopted person though because it seems testament to the idea of nurture being at least not useless

>> No.16071436

While it is a good thing that you and others like you exist, it would be better for infertile couples to adopt or remain celibate. It is a cucked way to be brought into this world, unfortunately.

>> No.16071445

obviously you have no idea about the eurofaggot adoption cartel, perfectly normal and healthy families are purposefully broken apart and their kids put under government care to eventually be disseminated to exclusively homosexual couples. eastern euro countries are overwhelmingly targetted because eurotrannies have a grudge against conservative, god fearing slavs who reject their cultural AIDS

>> No.16071454

For any self respecting man it’s in vitro pregnancy or no deal. Even adoption is more cucked

>> No.16071485

>We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world if, instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes. Three generations of imbeciles are enough.

>> No.16071513

It is non sequitur but not merely. It blatantly means to shame, and present any so called prudent behavior of theirs to be sacred. Holier than thou bullshit.

>> No.16071530
File: 13 KB, 236x243, e1cceca77b053ecea9cfe9cb9e5cc3c4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

What pisses me off is that she intentionally chose sperm from a 5'6" man, to try to make me match her height

>> No.16071626

Shame they stopped, and your bitchass spawned

>> No.16071632

My dick

>> No.16071642

That's why self-respecting boards ban frogs.

>> No.16071648

Making others suffer so you feel good about yourself is the cruelest and selfish thing one can do, and a person like that is a wild beast that has no place in society

>> No.16071650

Are you a black woman by any chance?

>> No.16071655

Incels certainly have less value than black women.

>> No.16071666

I dislike incels, and my genetics are very good, I've had a genome wide search. The only abnormality I have is gillbert syndrome and that helps cardiovascular health. I just really don't see the point in forcing people to needlessly suffer, do you think those poor people wanted to suffer with pain and die prematurely?

>> No.16071676

To what time does this "wanted" refer, o Satan?

>> No.16071680

>The only abnormality I have is gillbert syndrome and that helps cardiovascular health
Nice trips. Beware that while gilbert's syndrome is correlated with better cardiovascular health, it's also often correlated with gallbladder dysfunction. If you start having pains in your upper right torso that radiate out to your back and then your whole body and that grow to be debilitating, make sure you get to a hospital and ask them to do an ultrasound on your gallbladder.

>> No.16071685

I asked if she was a black woman because of the way she wrote.

>> No.16071694

using the only definable feature demonstrated by an avatar to insult him yourself. literally why

>> No.16071708

Noted, thanks anon.

>> No.16071716

No problem anon. Also have gilbert's syndrome, and had to have my gallbladder taken out last year. No ill effects since its removal, and the recovery time from the surgery gave me a few days off where I was able to just read which was nice.

>> No.16071722
File: 22 KB, 480x480, 1581545423492.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

IMAGINE going to a bank and buying a jar of penis milk when there's hundreds of orphans in the orphanage waiting to be adopted
children who never know the warmth of a mother's kiss or a father's hug
How selfish and callous
Only in America

>> No.16071734

Good bait, but you should use less awkward formatting.

>> No.16071741

I'm from Norway though.

>> No.16071742

>Only in America

>> No.16071745
File: 624 KB, 782x800, 1596723160681.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>people who disagree with me are just pretending waaaah!
Same thing, you're all subhuman

>> No.16071770

>calling white people subhuman for recieving a baby from a sperm bank instead of adopting, in a thread about a black woman with servere deformities getting pregnant, knowing her child will surfer and die prematurely.

Do asiancucks really?

>> No.16071773

Also true for wojaks.

>> No.16071778

>knowing her child will surfer
Riding the waves is cool.

>> No.16071787

>calling white people subhuman for recieving a baby from a sperm bank instead of adopting
The rest of your post is irrelevant

>> No.16071793

But if we are the subhumans. Who are not sub?

>> No.16071814

people who adopt, you stupid rich faggot. are you illiterate? also EW ESL POSTS!!!!!

>> No.16071827

ITT: antinatalist monkeys seething about a monkey and her little offspring.

>> No.16071885
File: 160 KB, 593x403, 1D113DB0-E836-4916-BA3A-096A4748579C.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

*hits pipe*

Is adopting the ultimate cuckoldry?

I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than adopting a child. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing, raising and rearing someone else’s child for at least 18 years solely so they can enhance their biological parents reproductive success. All the hard work you put into your adopted child - reading them stories at bedtime, making them go to sports practice, making sure they had a healthy diet, educating them, playing with them. All of it has one simple result: their body and mind are more capable of successfully passing on the genes of someone who isn’t you.

Raised the perfect person? Great. Who benefits? If you're lucky, a close relative of your own who had nothing to do with the way they grew up, who marries them. They get to reproduce with them. Their offspring get the benefits of you adopted child’s kind and sweet personality that came from the way you raised them.

As a man who adopts, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least 20 years of your life simply to raise a person for another person to succeed reproductively. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Think about it logically.

>> No.16071901

There's no such thing as a self-respecting board on 4channel.org, you'd know this if you weren't so up your own ass

>> No.16071931

There's a large shortage of foster parents. If conservative christian or muslim families would actually volunteer to become foster parents instead of complaining about it this wouldn't be a problem.

>> No.16071941

Adoption is just a euphemism for human trafficking. It's doubly sick when degenerate gene pool dead ends are stealing the healthy babies.

>> No.16071984
File: 652 KB, 1669x2560, 91AuFmU8jtL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

On topic, and a good book: We Need to Talk About Kevin

>> No.16072471

So bros, how drunk would you have to be to have sex with the woman in OP's video?

>> No.16072534

She's in a relationship.

>> No.16072580

With Mr. Magoo?

>> No.16072607


>However, the fact of the matter is that no one chooses to be born. And, in many cases, no one chooses to have a disability.

You're contradicting yourself here....

Also, if you extend your disability logic, does that mean poor people shouldn't have children? Or that people with below average (which is 50%...) physical and mental stats shouldn't have children? Where do you draw the line?

>> No.16072609

Have you ever seen a dog in heat turn down another dog? Animals don't have standards.

>> No.16072617

>cucking yourself into raising another's child

>> No.16072625

no because that's different from genuine disabilities. two idiots can have intelligent children, a manlet can have a tall son, etc.

>> No.16072638

Nobody should have children

>> No.16072643

Nope, you?

>> No.16072664

Wow, there's even a heart around the picture of the freak and baby freak. That jogger has no standards at all

>> No.16072720

Based conditional Trump supporter

>> No.16072731
File: 71 KB, 600x628, 40a614ff3a5b4e3ba836e3381519d917.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16072733

If every culture in existence still practiced eugenics no one who uses 4chan would exist.

>> No.16072742

Well count me in!

>> No.16072776


It really isn't different though.

Disabilities aren't 100% either.

"Disabilities" are on a scale in terms of severity and risk (just like mental and physical attributes) How severe is too severe? How much risk is too much risk? And who decides?

And what about wealth? That's something that's much more concrete and quantifiable. If disabled people shouldn't be allowed to have children, what about poor families?

>> No.16072965

Holy shit I hope someday China or Russia bomb this abomination that is the USA.

>> No.16073114

wtf I'm a Nazi now

>> No.16073151

>shucks and jives and creates a hellspawn to dab on """"haters""""


>> No.16073186


>> No.16073204

do you think white people adopt less per capita or something?

>> No.16073370

I doubt she could define socialism. Then again, I bet you couldn't either.

>> No.16073381

Is that Lil B?

>> No.16073403

What is the alternative? Let the children grow up in foster care, in which case they will become criminals and fucked up? The children will have a better chance if a decent family raises them.

I'm honestly curious to what your opinion is on what we do with children in foster care.

>> No.16073411

Imagine having such a weird, warped world view. I'm glad people like you are on the absolute fringe of society and will stay that way.

>> No.16073454

If foster care turns people into criminals then why don't we just kill all the orphans?

>> No.16073458

IQ is a highly heritable trait. Two idiots very, very rarely have a genuinely intelligent child.

>> No.16073495

Because killing people because they might become criminals is very unethical, and is punishment for pre-crime, which I think someone on 4chan who is probably right wing would see the issue with, what if the current government adopted this?

Most importantly because their are better alternatives, such as attempting to give these people a better shot at life, lessening the chance of them becoming criminals, rather than killing thousands of people because at some point in their life they will probably commit a crime, regardless of the severity of that crime.

I can't think of a single ethical system where this would be acceptable, Deontology, utilitarianism, christian ethics, egoism?

>> No.16073527

But why is okay to kill them when they're unborn for the same reason? I'm looking for consistency. If it's okay to kill the unborn because they're going to have to go through foster care then it should be okay to kill the born who are in foster care.

>> No.16073561


>> No.16073588

Abortion is okay if it happens before their is any sentience in the fetus, because then it isn't killing anything, therefor it isn't killing something because of what it one day will become.

Abortion is important primarily because people have a right to bodily autonomy as long as that doesn't harm anyone else, (within reason), which if a fetus is not conscious or sentient it doesn't. If it gets to the point when a fetus becomes a sentient creature then a fetus shouldn't be aborted except under extreme circumstances.

>> No.16073638

So sentience is what gives us the right to life. What is sentience? When you say bodily autonomy also gives us the right to kill the unborn is this being construed as a property right, as in if you trespass on my property I should be able to kill you? I think most people would agree that we have certain duties towards the guests we invite onto our property, including not shooting them in the head the second we decide we no longer want them on our property.

>> No.16073724

Looks like one of those hydrocephalus 'teacup' chihuahuas.

>> No.16073775
File: 2.87 MB, 700x392, korean_future_children.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16073791
File: 2.93 MB, 1066x600, pregnant.webm [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>> No.16073854

This webm is filling me with existential dread.

>> No.16073897

Sentience is the ability to feel and sense, and is what should be used to measure if something is alive, otherwise you would have to argue it's immoral to kill plants, or germs, or anything that has any simulation response. Before 30 weeks after conception the fetus' brain activity is extremely limited and components related to information processing are extremely underdeveloped. This is why aborting after 30 weeks is immoral, as after 30 weeks the lower boundary for what would be considered sentience develops, and aborting it would be killing a life form for the future potential of what might happen to it.

Since aborting before 30 weeks doesn't kill anything that we can class as sentient, your second point is irrelevant. It's also very strange to consider the self a "property" in the capitalist or political economy sense of the word, but even if you do, it would be be more akin to removing plants that attracts unwanted rodents to your lawn, as these plants are "alive", but not sentient, and although they will one day attract sentient rodents to your lawn, you can remove the plants before this happens. That way the potential sentient life forms never occur, so you don't have to kill them, because you removed the non-sentient life forms.

>> No.16073906

Are people in comas alive?

>> No.16073934
File: 90 KB, 600x381, 1498540165164312287.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]


>> No.16073957

this. having children is a hobby currently. to drive a car you need license, because bad driving is a threat to other peoples lives.

>> No.16073964

Yes, they also have sense and consciousness, and can even react to stimuli, (although this is limited, and usually through changes in brain activity, however these are all things that a fetus before 30 weeks cannot do).

Is someone who's brain-dead sentient? No, and they are only kept alive by machines, which is why "pulling the plug", isn't unethical.

>> No.16073997


>> No.16074000

Brain-dead man will never become sentient, unlike people in comas.

>> No.16074015

I don't know where you get 30 weeks from because brainwaves can be detected in the unborn by 40 days, effectively making abortion illegal if your standard was actually applied. Why is sentience what makes somebody a person rather than the nature or what something is? From the moment of conception there is an organism with unique human DNA and it's is growing.

>> No.16074036

Can a computer be sentient and have a right to life?

>> No.16074055

What's your point? People in comas are already sentient, that's why people don't generally pull the plug on people who are showing brain activity in coma, and it would be unethical to kill them. Fetus before 30 weeks aren't sentient so it isn't unethical to abort them because you aren't killing a living, sentient creature.

My original point was it's unethical to kill orphans just because it's likely they will one day become criminals, another anon brought up abortion as a red herring, but whatever.

>> No.16074080
File: 117 KB, 400x309, rainboi.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Is reality even real anymore. I make fun of these magician metaphysicians or whatever talking about kali and earth being a simulated hell or whatever or some shit on this board, but these months have just been to unreal. Is anyone even real.

>> No.16074139

If a computer possessed the computational power to feel, sense and experience subjectivity, independent of human inputs then it would be sentient by definition, at that point it would probably be far removed from what we understand as computers at the moment, and at that point it would be unethical to "kill it".

I've already said, "Before 30 weeks after conception the fetus' brain activity is extremely limited and components related to information processing are extremely underdeveloped. This is why aborting after 30 weeks is immoral, as after 30 weeks the lower boundary for what would be considered sentience develops, and aborting it would be killing a life form for the future potential of what might happen to it.", is it immoral to kill plants or germs? No, because they aren't sentient, they don't have a subjective will and want to live, because they aren't sentient.

Okay, but it isn't a sentient creature, by the definition you just gave it would me unethical to remove a cancerous tumor, as that's an organism with human DNA that grows. The reason you don't mind removing that is because it's not sentient. Sentience is the litmus test for what is a alive and deserving of rights.

>> No.16074174

Why is sentience what makes somebody a person rather than the nature or what something is? From the moment of conception there is an organism with unique human DNA and it's is growing. I don't know where you're getting this 30 weeks number from but you're mistaken. Brain activity can be detected in the unborn by 40 days.

>> No.16074186

it is real, but God made it and He made us
I love you, buddy. Worry is not conducive to success

>> No.16074198

i mean the women in OP was born retarded so she can hardly be blamed.

>> No.16074201

thanks guy

>> No.16074212

I've never seen a cancer cell turn into an adult human being so it must be of a different order.

>> No.16074220

Yes, this went a bit outside the initial scope.

>> No.16074250

We are going in circles. Why is it not unethical to remove a tumor? It has unique human DNA and is growing? You must acknowledge the reason why is because it isn't sentient.

Brain waves are not sentience, I literally explained it in my post, brain activity is extremely limited. Below is one source, but there are plenty of others, you are confusing sentience with any brain activity.


>> No.16074273

Once it becomes a sentient creature it would be unethical to kill it, but if it isn't a sentient creature, it isn't unethical to remove it. Same with a fetus. The ethics of something aren't dependent on the potentiality of what may eventually happen.

>> No.16074306
File: 169 KB, 633x605, 1531098277009.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

That baby looks like a pug

>> No.16074316

>The ethics of something aren't dependent on the potentiality of what may eventually happen.
I don't think you really that ethics aren't dependent on consequences or potential consequences. The entire justices system revolves around this. We punish drunk drivers because they could kill somebody, and we punish drunk drivers who do kill people much more harshly.

>> No.16074351

It's more than real
*tips fedora*

>> No.16074364
File: 333 KB, 600x444, Decay.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

You have a moral obligation to burn it all down anon

>> No.16074373

>I don't think you really that ethics aren't dependent on consequences or potential consequences.
>He's never read Kant

I don't care what the justice system says, what's ethical and what isn't is not dependent on the laws of whatever country YOU live in.

>> No.16074443

>The ethics of something aren't dependent on the potentiality of what may eventually happen.
It clearly is.

>> No.16074486

Seems evident

>> No.16074493

stupid Lilith face. dumb forbidden fruit eater using man's technology to brag about moral and visual degradation. so pathetic and sad. this civilization is on life support and the chinese will sell these people to the arabs for .0003 cents

>> No.16074515

Ethics is dependent on whether the act is moral or not, not what may or may not happen because of the act. There is a shopping list of reasons why consequentialism is a bad ethical system. How can you even be antiabortion if you're a consequentialist? Would you abort a sentient fetus if that fetus would grow up to kill 2 children? Under a non-consequentialist ethical system, (what I'm suggesting), you wouldn't,as it's wrong to kill a sentient creature. However under a consequentialist ethical system, (what you're suggesting), it wouldn't be unethical, because you can prevent the negative potentiality. You proposing two contradictory things.

>> No.16074554

>Would you abort a sentient fetus if that fetus would grow up to kill 2 children?
Have you invented the time machine to see that?

>> No.16074571

It's a hypothetical you donkey, if a time machine exists or doesn't, it still shows consequentialism is wrong. The fact we don't know the future makes it consequentialism even more unreliable, how can you judge the ethics of an act based on it's consequences if we can never know what the consequences will be?

>> No.16074575

>How can you even be antiabortion if you're a consequentialist?
Let's see: abortion permanently ends the life of a fetus, but birth will inconvenience mother more. If you consider life more valuable than temporary comfort, you should be antiabortion if you are a consequentialist.

>> No.16074590

You have no idea what the effect of that child will be on the world, and what damage/pain/suffering it will be responsible for. If you're a consequentialist the only ethical thing to do regarding children is never get pregnant in the first place.

>> No.16074607

If we clearly know several consequences of some scenario, but it also has some consequences we don't know about, then you should judge it by measuring the known consequences. Sounds pretty simple?
Anyway, imprisoning someone because otherwise he will kill someone else sounds pretty sane. Killing is trickier, but doubt that even a deontologist will not be against killing a a terrorist to prevent a bomb explosion.

>> No.16074620

no one should have a baby

>> No.16074625

If I don't know a full list of consequences for some scenario, then I estimate its value according the consequences I can predict. That's little different for any activity, not only childbirth.

>> No.16074627

Fuck PR. I would say go to hell but your already there. The devil is in every Puerto Rican heart.

>> No.16074648

>If you're a consequentialist the only ethical thing to do regarding children is never get pregnant in the first place.
It's the opposite: life is good, therefore making new life is good (as a general rule).

>> No.16074833

>forbidden fruit eater

>> No.16075156


>> No.16075177

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

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

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

>> No.16075208


>> No.16075223

not him but I think it's a question of degree. what are the odds that your child will be condemned to a life of suffering? being born into poverty doesn't; preclude one from a good life, even if they stay poor. being born with a crippling disability is much more likely to stop you from finding happiness. there's not really a clear answer to this, but some cases are more obvious than others

>> No.16075244

>giving birth to a goblin out of spite

Lol man, that’s pretty hardcore.

>> No.16075251

>And add some extra, just for you.
Does that imply that ancient people were noble savages?

>> No.16075258

Yes, but less so if the adopted child is of the same ethnicity as you. At least then you are contributing to the success of your biological collective (i.e. the success of a genetic profile relatively similar to your own).

>> No.16075307

Does that mean that every man who values reproductive success should forget about own children and try hard to get his sperm in sperm banks? Even a moderate success will be better than even a large own family.

>> No.16075317

Only a cuck would adopt and raise someone elses. Fuck off soilad

>> No.16075347

Anon just because you were cucked and are raising your wifes kid doesn't mean everyone wants to do the same. Or adopt.

>> No.16075451

There's no reason not to do both.

>> No.16075458

Yeah I'm not buying it... Fetuses display behaviours like thumb-sucking and voice recognition long before 30 wks., which are evidence of sensation (and fairly coordinated sensation at that) — which is a less nebulous benchmark than 'sentience' (we haven't nailed down precisely what sentience is in adults yet).

I agree that there's a major moral difference between aborting a literal "clump of cells" and killing an orphan toddler, but I don't think your very lax abortion timeframe does your argument any favours.

As for the eugenics issue... I think we should be frontloading the burden as much as possible. Creatures such as in OP's post should be sterilized, along with certain types of criminals and chronic welfare recipients. I believe in aggressive eugenics, but rapid eugenic impact can be achieved without killing those already (or soon to be) born.

>> No.16075565

>muh race
>except not really, tee hee, just my own nutsack juice
Literally nigger philosophy.

>> No.16075566

What's a "soilad"? Yeah, it is cuckery (by definition)... I didn't disagree with that. Still, I think there's a significant difference between a cuck who raises a kid from their own biological collective, and an über-cuck who raises nigger spawn (thereby betraying not only their direct lineage but their ethnicity/race in general).

I'm on 4chan buddy, I don't have a wife or a gf. I wasn't encouraging adoption or cuckoldry, just pointing out a salient difference in circumstances. At least the ethnocentric cuck can still be useful to his biological collective, as can non-reproducing members (by providing various forms of support to that collective).

>> No.16075596

different poster, but poor people should reproduce less than they currently do for sure

>> No.16075624

Go back

>> No.16075626

Tbdesu i really cant figure out why any of them stopped.

>> No.16075657
File: 197 KB, 416x576, a modest proposal.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>If foster care turns people into criminals then why don't we just kill all the orphans?
t. Swift

>> No.16075679
File: 461 KB, 412x594, 1573627036131.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>ctrl f
>kenzaburo oe
>0 results
>a personal matter
>0 results

>> No.16075692


>> No.16075826

What the fuck would being poor have to do with anything?

>> No.16076129

Yeah, our culture practices DYSgenics...

>> No.16076185

>does that mean poor people shouldn't have children?
Yes, unless they can afford to pay for them. Welfare recipients should be given mandatory birth control shots.
>Or that people with below average (which is 50%...) physical and mental stats shouldn't have children?
Of course they shouldn't. Under Darwinian conditions they probably would never have bred anyway, and anyway if they are mentally/physically deficient then any children they have will grow up under conditions little short of abusive. Think of the children!

>> No.16076229

That baby may one day become concious enough to despise her own mother for subjugating her to a life of hinderance, misery, and pain, if her capacity to even think allows her so.

>> No.16076267

True, but still a cuck move

>> No.16076324

>anti-natalism is not anti-humanism
>when most anti-natalists share the same generic, pessimistic and misanthropic beliefs


How about YOU adopt those orphans, you obviously know what it's like to be selfless. Hell, you'd probably think burying your body is selfless because you aren't donating your cadaver to science, or living is selfish because there are so many people out there who need spare parts and organs. No, choosing to have your own child over adopting an orphan is not selfish.

Perhaps the anti-natalists should contribute a little, too.

>you are selfish
>no, I don't want children; I want spare money, time, and to pursue my dreams like I'm having a midlife crisis
>no, I don't want to adopt either, because I don't want children, and I gain from not having children

Sentience is the ability to feel and sense, and is what should be used to measure if something is alive, otherwise you would have to argue it's immoral to kill plants, or germs, or anything that has any simulation response
I disagree, the capacity for sentience is what should be taken into account. We'd be able to kill lobotomized or otherwise brain-dead individuals, too, right? Humans should not be murdered not because they are sentient, but because they have the capacity to be sentient, including those who's capacity is hampered (because they're sleeping or brain-dead or what have you).

You are killing a living creature. Is it sentient? No. But what is sentience? Brain waves? Then specify- if someone has no brain waves, it is moral to kill them.

That would be incorrect, a cancerous tumor has the DNA of the host, while the offspring has a unique genetic combination. It has the capacity to develop sentience, whatever that means. It better be something related to brain activity, otherwise we can kill all non-human life without compunction.

If sentience is "the ability to perceive things and feel," then that is too lax of a criterion for a worthy life (that, if taken, would be considered murdered).

I agree, consequentialism is idiotic if taken to its illogical conclusion (which it never is, for the sake of people actually acting). This is why Utilitarians need a big sky daddy AI to tell them what actions they should perform and which would not increase maximum pleasure. I still think it would be immoral to abort a human fetus because it is a human being, sentient or not. If you think its species is an arbitrary thing to get caught up on, see my point on capacity.

I am inclined to agree (knowing how most AN arguments are rooted in Utilitarianism), but there is a point beyond which consequences can't be taken into account if you want to be effective.

China bought Lucasfilm?

>> No.16076336

It's capacity to do so is hindered by it's genetic disease, but it's still there. No harm done if you're brain dead, right? I'm sure anti-natalists would die to live the same- without a care in the world and virtually brain dead (though going there would just be the next step from their philosophy)

>> No.16076596

10/10 in Britbong.

>> No.16076647
File: 121 KB, 710x711, 1594345902470.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

vote euthanasia

>> No.16076652


>> No.16076705

Anon be careful, you don't want to attract the wrong attention.

>> No.16076712

Reminder, all pugs should be euthanised.

>> No.16076727

only if there is something to experience is, i.e. it suffers from the injustice indirectly or directly

>> No.16076936

Exactly. Adoption or surrogate birth is always an option

>> No.16076946

I'm somewhat amazed that The Brothers Karamazov has not been mentioned yet.

>> No.16077078

Where is cuckoldry involved in adoption?

>> No.16077120

How could you call what that child will be forced to go through anything short of injustice?

Delete posts
Password [?]Password used for file deletion.