/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17483845]

Hmm... natalistbros... we got to cocky... Can't find a counter argument...

[Anonymous No.17483881]

>>17483845
How does he explain condom use and contraceptives then. It's almost like people don't use contraceptives when they want to have a baby.

[Anonymous No.17483909]

>>17483845
Not procreating is taking away the decision of someone whether or not he wants to live. Not procreating as much as possible is the biggest evil except murder thus.

[Anonymous No.17483910]

>>17483845
>I'm alive :(
ah bloo bloo

[Anonymous No.17483929]

>>17483845
He seems to be thinking anyone who doesn't share his analysis of a child's interest (which I assume are against that child being born) must not care at all about those children's interests. A common mistake among thinkers.

[Anonymous No.17483935]

>>17483845
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.17483945]

>>17483845
Antinatalism is unironically the most cringe, emo, incel-tier line of thinking. I have a friend that unironically believes this shit and I want to shake him by the shoulders every time he starts talking to me about it.

[Anonymous No.17483948]

>>17483929
holy smart

[Anonymous No.17484048]

>>17483845
>"noooooooo it's not in the interests of the child!"
Don't care homocuck. I'm glad I exist and if my son becomes a loser that would rather not be born, he can just rope.

[Anonymous No.17484097]

>>17484048
Every time people bring up shit like this it's very fun to shock them. Although I'm talking about trannies and gays. I will say I don't support trannies or gays, and then people will inevitably say some boiler plate bullshit like "I respect your opinion, but what if you're future son is gay or wants to be transgender? What would you do? Would not support him?" And I explain to them, YES. I would not support him and I would dissuade him from his erroneous beliefs. They are always flabbergasted that I would not support my son being a tranny. But honestly it would never come to that because I would not indoctrinate my child on the ills of trannydom.

[Anonymous No.17484141]

>>17483945
Based

[Anonymous No.17484193]

>>17483845
>oh no it can’t be for the sake of the child
People who are happy to be alive and are thankful that they were born (like me) completely refute this by existing.
>b-but it might not have worked out well
The same could be said for leaving your house. Leaving your house may directly result in another person suffering without their consent but you don’t see anti-going-outside as a school of thought because it’s obviously retarded
>but you can control your actions when outside
You cannot control literally every effect of going outside. More importantly, as a parent you have a huge ability to contribute to your child’s happiness even beyond your death by raising them well.

There are exactly 2 kinds of anti-natalists:
A) hedonists frightened by the responsibility and reduction in potential for typical pleasure caused by raising a child. See “‘cool’ wine aunts”. Often rationalised by “I don’t need a child to be happy or purposeful” (followed by the acquirement of child surrogates usually as pets)
This is the kind of antinatalists you see in the real world, more often in women below the age of 30 but also in men who are obsessed with children’s media (vidya comics etc etc). Also very common in gay people coping with the relatively increased difficulty they have of producing raising children.
B) Pathetic Incels who (similar to the gays) are coping with their difficulties (though in this case it’s more of an impossibility) and so project their misery onto others, they are incapable of imagining people who are happy because of how deep-seated their untreated mental illness is. These are only found online and it’s not worth listening to them about this, just as it’s not worth listening to them about anything.

[Anonymous No.17484258]

>>17484097
If the hypothetical son has already fallen down the rabbit hole of hanging out with troomers at a young age, be it irl or online, the hypothetical parent has already failed.

[Anonymous No.17484319]

>>17484097
>>17484258
>eating out at a restaurant with a potential girlfriend
>she asks me about transgenders
>I tell her I think they're delusional and mentally ill
>BUT YOU DON'T SUPPORT THEM!? WHAT IF I WAS A TRANSGENDER PERSON?
>Firstly, women don't become trannies. It's a psyop meant to demoralize white males. The only trannies are white males, and they always will be. Lastly, if you were a tranny I would not be associating with you.
>I say this loudly as our obviously tranny waiter drops off the bill
>In the tip line I write "You will never be a woman."

[Anonymous No.17484328]

>>17484319
based spastic, this isn't real but I wish it was

[Anonymous No.17484339]

>>17484319
Anon, transsexualism has always been a thing.

Read, nigga, read!

[Anonymous No.17484352]

>>17483945
If you can just throw the argument away because you don't like what it's saying then all thought is useless since you can do that with anything. Really shows that "morality" is only true when someone wants it to be true, it's merely a tool, because ultimately it's not real.

[Anonymous No.17484362]

Being born is power

[Anonymous No.17484394]

>>17484352
>you can do that with anything.
You can't do that with reality or with thought that directly addresses reality. It is the antinatalist's job to present an utterly compelling argument; it is not my job to hear out what any sane person would regard as pathetic and hopelessly misguided slurry.

[Anonymous No.17484422]

>>17483881
Abstaining is the only fail safe form of contraception.

[Anonymous No.17484437]

>>17483910
>I'm gonna live forever :D
ah bloo bloo

[Anonymous No.17484456]

>>17483929
No he doesn't. He merely says they're not considering the child's interests at all. That is not the same as not caring about the child's interests once they are born.

[Anonymous No.17484477]

>>17484394
Anti-natalist argument is essentially the same one of consent as rape. If rape is morally wrong so is creating sentient life without their consent.

It's a good argument but you just don't like it.

[Anonymous No.17484493]

>>17483845
David "Be natal" Benatar. Refuted by his own name.

[Anonymous No.17484501]

>>17483845
>Hmm... natalistbros... we got to cocky... Can't find a counter argument...
I don't see any argument against bringing babies into the world. He just states a fact about human nature and culture

[Anonymous No.17484553]

>>17483909
This;
you’re quite literally a criminal if you don’t do everything in your power to follow in Genghis Khan’s footsteps.

[Anonymous No.17484555]

>>17484456
Small difference. Clearly he believes that parents never stop once to think "will our child have a good life and be glad he was born?" which is clearly silly and wrong in millions of cases. There is a reason so many people wait until they're in stable long term relationships, have stable income, feel at ease with themselves and with the world before they have their first kid. This is one of the biggest reason the age at which people get their first children has been rising for decades in the West. This is also one of the biggest reason fertility rates are decreasing worldwide.

[Anonymous No.17484585]

>>17483845
>antinatalist "thought"

wew

what a dogshit ideology

[Anonymous No.17484598]

>>17484555
I agree with everything you said.
However.
>One can never have a child for that child's sake
considering the above sentence one would have to agree since the potential child has no stake in the world as yet. The potential child has nothing to lose whereas the child manifest has everything to lose.

[Anonymous No.17484603]

>>17484319
I do believe this did indeed happened

[Anonymous No.17484605]

[Anonymous No.17484656]

>>17483845
Genuine question for anti-natalists:

Why was anti-natalism practically non-existent among the human species until the last few generations? Not including academics

And if anti-natalism is something that was never remotely considered by 99% of men before the modern world, how do you think it's philosophically sound?

Check and mate.

[Anonymous No.17484670]

>>17484656
>Why was anti-natalism practically non-existent among the human species until the last few generations?
The real answer is that men in the past liked to solve problems, so premodern antinatalists would have just roped, but modern people like to bitch and whine about everything instead. Hence antinatalism.

[Anonymous No.17484681]

>>17484656
>Why was anti-natalism practically non-existent among the human species until the last few generations?
Religion

[Anonymous No.17484689]

>>17484656
Look at the pic above you. Consider that two quotes are from holy texts of major religions. Sextus Empiricus describes tribes that would sing dirges of mourning upon a child’s birth. In the past people had children not necessarily because they were more optimistic about the world than moderns (often they were more fatalist and pessimistic than us). For many people having children was (and for many people in the third world it still is) an economic necessity. You must have children if you want to eat and be cared for. You need people to work the land with you.

[Anonymous No.17484694]

>>17484656
look at the post above yours and consider whether perhaps your question makes assumptions based on ignorance.
Also for the first time in human existence do we really have control over the human reproductive function (apart from abstinence) so it's hardly surprising that people are starting to think about how to wield it more responsibly.

[Anonymous No.17484710]

>>17483845
nice argument indeed! how lucky we are this guy was born to make it and we were born to read it!

[Anonymous No.17484739]

>>17484656
We evolved to want to reproduce because reproduction is the primary, necessary, method of evolution. Evolution favors what survives, not what is right.

[Anonymous No.17484761]

I mean, if the government provided the option for a free pill to go to sleep and never wake up, would you take it? Is life a necessary thing? Seems diff to not question

[Anonymous No.17484764]

>>17484710
No
It would have better never to have been born at all. But since we were unfortunate to be born, at least we're lucky enough that this guy was also born and that he confirmed our suspicions about life with his logic. There is some small consolation in knowing that we're not going through this alone. Even though we will live alone and die alone.

[Anonymous No.17484813]

>>17484739
>Evolution favors what survives, not what is right.

How can an ideology that directly opposes our primary drive as a species be compatible with human thought?

Perhaps it is only "right" to those who are predisposed to neuroticism that overcomes their natural way of thinking.

[Anonymous No.17484881]

>>17484813
perhaps in some distant future man will indeed lose the ability to think freely since being able to do so is indeed not the most conducive to reproduction.

[Anonymous No.17484890]

>>17484813
Nothing nature produces can be criticised ! including antinatalism

[Anonymous No.17484906]

>>17484761
theres an infinity of difference between not having been born and dying, even if it was painless. its like never having a heroin addiction and having one and then trying to stop it.

[Anonymous No.17484921]

>>17484193
Based, where’s the response to this

[Anonymous No.17484943]

>>17484656
1-appeal to popularity

2-it was probably considered by many. but by its very nature, its not a self procreating idea. but it comes up again and agian, because its reasonable

[Anonymous No.17485003]

>>17484921
Here:
>People who are happy to be alive and are thankful that they were born (like me) completely refute this by existing.
I fear for how your outlook might change in the future. I too used to be happy. Just because you think you know everything don't make it true.
>The same could be said for leaving your house.
>but you don’t see anti-going-outside as a school of thought because it’s obviously retarded
It's obviously retarded because leaving your house isn't really an option unless you want to starve to death. not having children however is an option.
>there's exactly 2 kinds of anti-natalists:
>ad-hominem attack

[Anonymous No.17485056]

>>17485003
So just on the chance of future unhappiness is a valid reason not to have children?

[Anonymous No.17485077]

>>17485056
I don't know for sure. That's the debate.

[Anonymous No.17485091]

>>17485056
>>17485077
One could argue that in the end nothing matters one way or the other. Everything will die eventually anyway and when they do it will be the same as if they never existed.

[Anonymous No.17485095]

>>17483845
>one can never have a child for that child's sake
Counterpoint: The Virgin Mary

[Anonymous No.17485098]

>>17485056
Hardly a chance. When you think about having children, do you think about the high probability—assuming they don’t die prematurely—of them experiencing cancer, senility, incontinence, dementia, depression? Just look at the mental illness rates in the modern world. There is a problem with young people debating antinatalism: they haven’t experienced the inevitable squalor of middle and old age.

[Anonymous No.17485142]

>>17485098
Good point. It's one angle I never thought of arguing but it's a very relevant one. Seeing your strength and health fade away as the years go by certainly isn't a positive experience.
It's easy to be optimistic about life when you're young and full of energy.

[Anonymous No.17485147]

>>17485091
>>17485077
Yeah I guess if we take this anti-natalism idea to its logical conclusion then people cease to exist. I guess I think people have value whether or not they are happy.

[Anonymous No.17485169]

>>17485098
Is life only supposed to consist of positivity?

[Anonymous No.17485201]

>suffering bad

[Anonymous No.17485223]

>>17485147
I think that happiness has value for the living

[Anonymous No.17485246]

>>17483845
Childbirth is so woven into reality that it happens effortlessly, and requires extreme psychological derangement to think it should cease. Anti-natalists don’t scare me any more than anarchists, or any other impossible to realize theory. They are a canary in the coal mine. I just feel bad they had to be the sacrificial lamb

[Anonymous No.17485295]

>>17485246
I think it's good that kind of people are antinatalists.
You know, I don't think we need more of them.

[Anonymous No.17485310]

>>17485201
>Suffering good

Kek

[Anonymous No.17485319]

>>17485246
So Buddha was crazy? I don't think so, people to be antinatalism are two kinds: one is "muh depression" and second are those who think things through and don't want to put a child onto this world. Stop being a nigger coping

[Anonymous No.17485360]

>>17485310
not him but yeah

[Anonymous No.17485365]

I'm an anti-natalist in the sense that words and reasoning is sickly, it contaminates life and birth. If reason is to be used, it can only be used to condemn life. If words can be used, they can only be used to denigrate birth. To conceive of life and birth as "things" in your head is to infect them with death
I don't mind creation but I will never speak positively about children or life because speaking of them is a way of poisoning them, it's the only truthful way of speaking at all

[Anonymous No.17485399]

Yep. Boomers had it easy. Just fuck and squirt em out.

[Anonymous No.17485404]

>>17485319
I don’t know happy go lucky anti-natalists. But even if I did I would equally think it impossible to universalize this belief system and put it into practice and voluntarily sterilize humanity into oblivion. Anti natalists would end up cartoon villains trying to destroy existence for its own good.

[Anonymous No.17485417]

>>17485319
The Buddha wasn't an anti-natalist and he did not hate life. Both attachment and aversion are contrary to the purpose of Buddhism.

[Anonymous No.17485421]

>>17485360
not him but 'yeah' isn't an argument.
Think Norstad, reason.

[Anonymous No.17485461]

>>17485421
Not him but yeah is an argument.
Suffering means growth.
Not suffering means stagnation, and subsequent decline.

[Anonymous No.17485513]

>>17485461
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger right?
But let's consider a hypothetical situation based in reality:
Bubba is a happy go lucky 25 yo male who is positive about life and grateful to be alive. One night Bubba crosses the street on foot on his way home from work when a drunken driver just happens to jump a red light and hits Bubba breaking his neck and rendering Bubba a quadriplegic for the rest of his life. Now one could argue Bubba will be stronger for the experience. After all Bubba will have to learn to cope with a lot of things most people take for granted and this will build a lot of character of Bubba's part. Bubba doesn't have much of a choice.
The question remains. Is Bubba really better off now as a quadriplegic than he would have been if he was never in that accident?

[Anonymous No.17485570]

>>17485513
yeah his life would probably be pretty shitty

[Anonymous No.17485587]

>>17485417
Buddhism is about ending being altogether, and birth is an essential part of the continued spinning of the wheel of suffering.

[Anonymous No.17485689]

>>17485513
What does this have to do with natalism?

[Anonymous No.17485714]

All of anti-natalism is based on category mistakes of ontology and morality. It's embarrassing, really.

[Anonymous No.17485722]

>>17485587
Yes, but none of this is conceived in some "woe is me" self-pitying, life-hating bullshit. Buddhism is about abolishing ignorance - which presupposes abolishing any identity with samsaric existence - it is not about abolishing life.

[Anonymous No.17485948]

>>17483909
With respect, you are full of shit. You cannot take away the rights of someone who doesn't exist yet. Clearly you misunderstand what "rights" mean.

[Anonymous No.17486046]

>>17483845
Like the Shakers, one needn't provide a counter argument, just wait and the problem will disappear. This is the Tao.

[Anonymous No.17486049]

>>17483845
Really dumb

[Anonymous No.17486056]

>>17484352
No, because we have comparative mythology. The child is the future. Even yoy Star Wars s o y s can comprehend Luke’s role

[Anonymous No.17486340]

>>17483845
It is good to exist. If it were not good to exist, it would be good to not exist. If it were good to not exist, it would be good to end one's existence. If it were good to not exist, and it were good to end one's own existence, it would be not only good, but altruistic to end other people's existence. Therefore, the greatest moral good would be to end all existence. Such a conclusion is obviously absurd, but it is the only logical conclusion of anti-natalist arguments. Any conclusion short of that would not be logical, but rather it would be sentimental. It would necessarily require one to think that some existence is good. But if at least some existence can be good, one cannot argue against birth on the grounds that it is wrong, universally, to bring someone else into existence. Anti-natalist is malevolent depression, a universalized desire for suicide. It is pure malice.

[Anonymous No.17486386]

>>17485722
>it is not about abolishing life.
Yes it is

[Anonymous No.17486388]

>>17484656
Refer to this >>17484605 faggot

[Anonymous No.17486404]

>>17486340
>Such a conclusion is obviously absurd
why is it obviously absurd?

[Anonymous No.17486430]

>>17486404
Have you ever had even a single fleeting positive experience in life?

[Anonymous No.17486463]

>>17486430
Yes, I have. How does a single fleeting positive experience justify existence over non-existence?

[Anonymous No.17486520]

>>17483845
and what if i dont think a nonexistent person has any interests because im not retarded?

[Anonymous No.17486604]

You are just real eyesing that you are in the 60% of men who did not contribute to the gene pool and taking control of it, taking control to make yourself feel more secure.
Do you think about the child? The interest of the children?
To me it seems that you only want to win this argument war and come on top, more important to be the smart one, who cares about the children.
A lot of Anons said a lot of smart thingys in this thread and I could not say it better then they did.
One question though, would you live if you could not have children? What if the whole world went infertile and could not have children, would you live then?

[Anonymous No.17486613]

>>17484605
>>17486388
two of those aren’t even antinatalist

[Anonymous No.17486619]

>>17486604
And saying children this children that, just say a human, when you say children you are making it that more important and serious.
If you said another human no one would care.

[Anonymous No.17487168]

>>17483845
the only refutation I need is actually talking to antinatalists and seeing the antinatalist subreddit. its just angry teenagers needing an excuse to hate their parents.

[Anonymous No.17487176]

Refuted by Christianity

[Anonymous No.17487184]

>>17487176
Refuted by National Socialism*

[Anonymous No.17487317]

>>17483845
>One can never have a child for that child's sake
Except the vast majority of people agree that being born is a good and procreate explicitly for the sake of a child.

[Anonymous No.17487331]

>>17487317
It doesn't take a low IQ monkey nigger to present a counter-argument.

[Anonymous No.17487342]

>>17484193
Easy to refute.

I'm not saying there are no happy people. Creating life is an unnecessary gamble. You will experience suffering and die, and that suffering is meaningless. There's no reason why it should happen.

Leaving your house is different. There's a before and after, since it's an event contained in your life and most antinatalists choose to live. (This is because they believe their lives are worth continuing, but another life is not worth starting. There's a difference.) It makes sense that someone would want to improve their life if they're not ending it, but there's no before/after as far as we know for an entire life.

A) That's childfree thinking, it doesn't invalidate antinatalism which is concern for children.
B) I'm not an incel.

[Anonymous No.17487419]

>>17487331
It takes somebody though, right?

[Anonymous No.17487498]

>>17487419
yeah, literally anyone

[Anonymous No.17487691]

>>17484764
no
I demolished your philosophy and you have no answer
I always spam antinatalist threads with this simple fucking sillogysm and I am yet to find one of you faggotrons who's able to answer it.
cease and fucking desist.

[Anonymous No.17487824]

>>17484553
>you’re quite literally a criminal if you don’t do everything in your power to follow in Genghis Khan’s footsteps.
i hate to tell you this, anon, but you're quite literally a criminal if you do everything in your power to follow in genghis khan's footsteps, too

[Anonymous No.17487852]

>>17483845
>among those reasons cannot be the interest of the potential child
Completely baseless. This is just a rhetoric device to make room for the anti natalistic fallacy that goes "well why don't you benefit the nonexistent child by..."

[Anonymous No.17487864]

>>17487852
So what's in it for the child who currently does not exist and doesn't feel deprived of anything, and will just suffer and die if they're born?

[Anonymous No.17487903]

>>17487864
>what's in it for the child
Everything.
>[the chilld] will just suffer and die
If you can tell "just" this will happen, then by all means, don't have a child. I feel much more confident in being able to provide for my child lol

[Anonymous No.17488161]

>>17487903
I mean over the course of their lives. And not all of it will be suffering, of course, but some of it is inevitable. Being able to afford it isn't everything, I'm sure I can too.

I don't see how "everything" is in store when, as far as we know, everything will be gone soon enough. But life feels long while we're living it, and so does suffering.

[Anonymous No.17488199]

Nobody here could give a good argument, just copes, like: "kek, bet ideology, kys", just show how people can't truly grasp or are low IQ threatened by antinatalism facts and can't cope, kek.

[Anonymous No.17488238]

>>17488161
>And not all of it will be suffering, of course, but some of it is inevitable.
Sure. I'm okay with that.
>I don't see how "everything" is in store when, as far as we know, everything will be gone soon enough.
Non-sequitur. Everything is in the store. What may or may not happen in the future does not change that fact. The child, by virtue of being born, will gain literally everything it will ever have. As compared to non-existence, in which case not only is there 0 benefit, the benefit cannot even be theoretically defined since there's nobody to benefit.

[Anonymous No.17488248]

>>17488199
>Nobody here could give a good argument
Against what? Lmao OP's pic related contains a baseless accusation with 0 inferences. It can be dismissed by a mere "nah".

[Anonymous No.17488259]

>>17488248
You aren't that bright.

[Anonymous No.17488274]

>>17488259
>Cmooon bro just make my argument for me based on sentimental nonsequiturs I vaguely express....

[Anonymous No.17488279]

Oh shit, natalistbros... How to deal it with that fact?

[Anonymous No.17488296]

>>17488279
>fact

[Anonymous No.17488299]

>>17488274
Bro, stop attacking me and attack the antinatalist main thesis, coming to existence do entails to suffer, it's a fact, so not bring anyone, than they don't suffer, that all, nothing more or less, ir truly negative utilitarianism at the ultimate consequences and logic points bro

[Anonymous No.17488304]

>>17488296
>Be born
>Suffer some way or another
>Kek bro this ain't a fact

Cope

[Anonymous No.17488315]

>>17488279
>>17488299
>coming into existence is always a serious harm
>by coming into existence one does suffer quite serious harms
Non-existent entity cannot be harmed. What he meant to say was that since he feels like non-existence is better, he also feels like it's harmful to come into existence. Which is simply meaningless.
>one could not have been deprived by their absence
This entirely hinges on the author refusing to deviate from the POV of being "deprived by ... absence". Which is not actually sufficient.

This book should have remained an article.

>>17488304
Weak.

[Anonymous No.17488327]

>>17488315
>NOOOOOOOOOO you have to suffer for 85 years because it's make your stronger bro, and then die, that all bro it's worth!

[Anonymous No.17488333]

>>17488327
>because it's make your stronger
Funny how OP's recognizable by poor spelling and by responses unrelated to other posts.

[Anonymous No.17488336]

>>17488315
THAT THE POINT, NOT EXISTING IS NET ZERO, THEY DON'T SUFFER OR PLEASURE, JUST ZERO, THE MOMENT YOU BRING SOMEONE TK LIFE IS JUST HUGE GAMBLE, BUT WITH SOMEONE LIFE, THAT ALL, AND YOU THINK THATS MORALLY GOOD, THEN, BROZ YOU'RE A PSYCHO.

[Anonymous No.17488344]

>>17488333
>Just gonna attack op poor grammar, cuz I don't have a argument to make

Cope.

[Anonymous No.17488349]

Promortalism/Non-existence>Existence is an Ancient Greek Philosophy.


>"You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: 'you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature's excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.' It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living."

– Aristotle, Eudemus (354 BCE)

[Anonymous No.17488358]

Islam commands having children and the child's soul predates his body. Now we only have to ask, is it in the best interest of the soul to have a body? The answer is he will be given one eventually regardless because creation can only end when every soul has gotten a body

[Anonymous No.17488365]

>>17488336
Alright, let's for a second ignore that the literal central thesis is fallacious. Maybe we can save antinatalism by the latter part of what I addressed: insisting on "can't be deprived by absence" as the sufficient analysis of the entire question of existence.
>NOT EXISTING IS NET ZERO
And since when is zero the goal?
>THE MOMENT YOU BRING SOMEONE TK LIFE IS JUST HUGE GAMBLE
No, not "just" a huge gamble, no.

The rest is undecipherable, but I feel like you're not going to save anti-natalism with it, given that you really just repeated what I had already called out in >>17488315:
>>>This entirely hinges on the author refusing to deviate from the POV of being "deprived by ... absence". Which is not actually sufficient.

>>17488344
>NOOOO don't mock me, you have to respond to an image of a car!!!!!!
Weak.

[Anonymous No.17488370]

>>17488358
>Using a religious argument as valid

Kek.

[Anonymous No.17488379]

Nobody here could giv a good argment, just copes, liek: "kek, harm lol, cope", just show how people can't trule grasp and or people are low IQ so threatened by existence and can't cope and, kek.

[Anonymous No.17488385]

>>17488370
>using a kufri argument as valid

Oof. Imagine how miserable an anti natalist is gonna be in eternal hell

[Anonymous No.17488386]

>>17483845
There is literally no argument presented in the image. Where are the premises? There is nothing to counter.

[Anonymous No.17488394]

>>17488386
See the power of anti-natalist thought right here: >>17488336

[Anonymous No.17488410]

Ok you coping nigger, there are a extremely good mathematical argument in favor of antinatalism, gonna post later, but I doubt you nigger can grasp since this a reading board not know for being truly good and logic.

[Anonymous No.17488415]

>>17488385
Go back to killing innocents abdullah

[Anonymous No.17488429]

>>17488415
>life bad
>nooooooooo, not heckin death!

[Anonymous No.17488431]

The probability of someone being truly happy for a long time is very very low, but still, by statistics and odds, exist someone out there that is very very happy and is life worth, total ANTINATALISM is wrong, but CONDITIONAL antinatalism is right, because deals with odds of one have a good life.

[Anonymous No.17488443]

>>17488431
>The probability of someone being truly happy for a long time is very very low
It is actually 0, because happiness is an emotion and those are pretty much by definition short-term.

Which is also why quality of life isn't measured by sum total of minutes spent in happiness.

[Anonymous No.17488477]

>>17488443
No, if someone is born within the right genetics and overall good odds of having good outcomes, one can achieve eudamonia, not truly happiness for ever, but a peaceful life, with is good overall. Conditional antinatalism is right answer and extremely logical.

[Anonymous No.17488482]

>>17484422
girls don't know how to abstain and actually they refuse to abstain

[Anonymous No.17488552]

>>17488482
Not with you, surely

[Anonymous No.17488654]

>>17488477
>a peaceful life, with is good overall
Sure! But that's by far not the same as "happiness". They're two different terms.
>Conditional antinatalism is right answer
So is conditional natalism then lol

[Anonymous No.17488926]

bumpy

[Anonymous No.17489598]

>>17485056
Yes unironically

[Anonymous No.17490313]

>>17487342
Easy to refute. I want a child so that I have someone to take care of my affairs in an intelligent manner when I am old and infirm, as well as when I die. Also all the other joys of parenting bs. In return for burdening them with existence, I will do everything in my power to make their life enjoyable and safe, as well as empower them to find their own meaning, safety, and joy, to compensate them for their work and their suffering.

[Anonymous No.17490690]

>>17484319
>Firstly, women don't become trannies. It's a psyop meant to demoralize white males
Delusional, but based larp

[Anonymous No.17490735]

>>17488199
every fucking antinatalist thread I post the same fucking syllogism none of you managed to answer to it.
Cease and desist.

[Anonymous No.17490744]

>mirrors and copulation are abominable, since they both multiply the numbers of men
Heresiarch of Uqbar

>The Gun is good. The Penis is Evil.
Zardoz

[Anonymous No.17490781]

>>17490313
>I
>I
>I
>I

Yikes.

[Anonymous No.17490988]

>>17490744
>quote
Some Old Nigger

[Anonymous No.17491007]

>>17485689
everything

[Anonymous No.17491470]

>>17483845
Mods?

>I'm going to beg the question by assuming a bunch of metaphysics and ethics then post my dumb thoughts on a /lit/erature forum. That'll convince people to not have sex!

[Anonymous No.17491644]

>>17484193
>People who are happy to be alive and are thankful that they were born (like me) completely refute this by existing.

Hardly anyone claims that life precludes happiness.

[Anonymous No.17491664]

AAAAAAAAH JUSTIFY THIS OR I'LL DEBOOOONK IT JUSTIFY IT TO ME I AM ENTITLED TO A JUSTIFICATION WHAT DO YOU MEAN I AM JUSTIFIED TO ALLOW MY BODY TO PERFORM ITS FUNCTIONS YOU AREN'T, YOU SHOULD GO TO A DOCTOR AND GET A VASECTOMY SO THAT MORE PEOPLE WON'T SUFFER, NEVER MIND JAMAL AND HIS TWELVE KIDS AREN'T GOING TO WORK AND WILL MAKE ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS SUFFER LOL

[Anonymous No.17491671]

>>17484319
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T2AnqEMIYMA

[Anonymous No.17491689]

>>17483845
>Country gets flooded with niggerspawn
Not falling for it

[Anonymous No.17491693]

>>17491689
Whoa cool it with the antisemitism

[Anonymous No.17491701]

>>17485056

Yes, and anyone who disagrees is wrong and/or lying. Consider subjecting someone born to an event that randomly results in either having their limbs cut off or getting a cookie. Absolutely Morally wrong.

[Anonymous No.17491715]

>>17484906
>I can't just kill myself! I prefer living so strongly that I compare it to a heroin addiction
>oh, but I totally wish I was never born, I'm definitely not a delusional coping fag

[Anonymous No.17491736]

>>17491701
False equivalence.

[Anonymous No.17491742]

>>17491736

Why?

[Anonymous No.17491759]

>>17491664
>NEVER MIND JAMAL AND HIS TWELVE KIDS AREN'T GOING TO WORK AND WILL MAKE ALL FUTURE GENERATIONS SUFFER LOL
Most antinatalists are more against poor people having kids than rich people retard

[Anonymous No.17491774]

>>17491759
>Antinatalism is just eugenics by another name

And that's bad? Dare I say... Well.. extremely based.

[Anonymous No.17491775]

>>17491759
So we should sterilise poor people? Based.

[Anonymous No.17491779]

>>17491759
>>17491759
Africans aren't being subjected to this drivel, especially because they are religious

[Anonymous No.17491799]

>>17491774
Not for the same purpose as eugenics, I just think a rich persons kid has more chance than a poor persons. Id much rather a millionaire family have a kid than a family in the slums to have a kid, for the sake of the child.
>>17491775
No we should sterilise everyone, but the poor are less trustworthy and breed like rats.
>>17491779
Also because they cant read

[Anonymous No.17491803]

>>17491759
>>17491774
>>17491775
wtf, so antinatalists are crypto fascists?

[Anonymous No.17491809]

>>17491799
>I just think a rich persons kid has more chance than a poor persons
I just think a rich persons kid has more chance than a poor persons kid at being happy/content in life*

[Anonymous No.17491828]

>>17491742
Getting a cookie is not life's greatest joy and is extremely common (one you have control over even), getting your limbs cut off is an extremely uncommon situation even in wartorn shitholes.
If you insist on describing this "event" (birth) as a gamble or some kind of game of chance ("random") then it looks like a absurdly good one for the gambler and is in fact a pro-natalist argument.

[Anonymous No.17491866]

>>17491828
Oh yeah, and it's also worth noting neither of these situations preclude unhappiness or happiness. You can be a fulfilled cripple or an angry depressed little shit raiding the cookie jar.
That's all this boils down to: silly word games, hypotheticals that don't apply to 99% of the population and false equivalences between bodily dislocation and materialism.

[Anonymous No.17491876]

>>17491866
If people are just animals with no agency that we breed in apartments and rural redneck suburbs so they can support the economy so we can produce more of them in turn, its just growth for the sake of growth like a cancer cell. We need to put an end to it.

[Anonymous No.17491883]

>>18984458
How good an idea is it to be a trans girl "father"?

[Anonymous No.17491945]

>>17491828
>>17491866

I said either-or, which applies to any and all odds, i.e. 50-50 and 90-10 are both either-or. Regardless, would you then subject an other, or yourself, to such an event?

[Anonymous No.17492382]

Why is this thread still here? A good thread about hegel gets quickly deleted because it's not about a specific work but this Twitter screenshot post about nobody's writings is left alone for days?

[Anonymous No.17492409]

>>17484097
They're so entrenched in their bubbles that they don't understand how anyone could be against their inhuman hedonism. They legit think everyone against homosexuality and transgenderism is a bible thumper methhead.

[Anonymous No.17493682]

>>17492382
Bullocks

[Anonymous No.17493865]

>>17483845
>First, a pessimist/antinatalist straw man is built. The pessimist/antinatalist would be characterized by the following traits: he is deeply unhappy, hates himself and existence (p. 2), seems especially grumpy and incapable of any joy, is a desperate person (6), who adores the negative, death and everything that is connected with non-existence, that “makes nothingness positive” and turns it into a kind of divinity (21), which has his pessimist/antinatalistic attitude by personal problems to insert himself in life, among the happy people; an annoying bastard and killjoy, somewhat crazy (and possibly homosexual, especially if he speaks ill of procreation and fatherhood)...

Still within this first straw man strategy, it is curious that when an optimistic philosopher claims to have discovered something (for example, freedom, dignity of the human person, the eternal in man, etc.), it is considered that he has discovered something for humanity; but when the pessimist/antinatalist discovers something unpleasant (perverse infantile sexuality, mortality, structural pain), what he discovered_is valid only for him_ and not for humanity. Ever since I began to write on these issues, objections have almost always gone in this direction: “Pessimism is a personal, subjective and non-universalizable posture; you are like that, those are your personal characteristics and of many people as sick as you”; but I never hear any criticism of “subjectivity” when the results are beautiful. (Of course, this and other outrageous asymmetries are allowed to the optimist who, as MV says cheerfully, accepts reason only when it is convenient, but reserves the right to reject it when it is not).

[Anonymous No.17493975]

>>17483909
>making a decision for someone who doesnt exist
based retard

[Anonymous No.17494366]

>both sides of this argument postulating (negative) utilitarianism as a moral ideal

[Anonymous No.17494399]

>>17483845

> counter argument

To what?

[pip No.17495904]

>>17494366
couldnt agree moar

[Anonymous No.17495914]

>>17485948
He/She exists in my balls and we can know he/she wants to live as a person because given the chance they will enter the vagene.

[Anonymous No.17496195]

>>17491945
>STILL NO REPLIES

THE ABSOLUTE STATE!

[Anonymous No.17496210]

>>17483845
just be a fucking good parent

[Anonymous No.17496588]

>>17483845
Why yes, me, my son, and his second time pregnant wife do agree.

[Anonymous No.17496607]

>>17483845
Existence is inevitable.
>>17488279
Existence is inevitable.
You cannot argue for non-existance, since non-existance is not attainable. All there is, is existence. The argument for non-existance is just as empirically and logically vapid as the argument for Garden Eden as a location.

[Anonymous No.17496627]

>>17496607
This.
To be an antinatalist is to assume, there is a child who's birth could be prevented, as if that child had a soul that was floating somewhere within nothingness, waiting to be dragged into a body. It's pure crypto-christian essentialist bullshit!

[Anonymous No.17496885]

>>17496210
>good parent
Those don't exist

[Anonymous No.17497278]

>>17483845
My children are fated to be, therefore they already are