Is this the endgame of all philosophy? 15 years and no one has an answer to this book.

File: 55 KB, 640x853, cz40jwrp8qs41.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:47:16 2023 No.21577872 [Reply] [Original]

Is this the endgame of all philosophy? 15 years and no one has an answer to this book.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:48:51 2023 No.21577875 yah cuz they all read it and killed themselves LOL

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:50:14 2023 No.21577878 >>21577872 There is an afterlife.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 06:52:14 2023 No.21577884 >>21577878 ya its called death LOL

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:07:17 2023 No.21577917

>>21577872
I used to buy into anti-natalism but have since changed my view given the incoherence of non-existence. Only existence "is", non-existence "is not" and necessarily cannot obtain. So what? Suppose that existence is identical to consciousness, for what exists necessarily exists for a subject (subject and object are inseparable). If that is the case, then opting out of procreation makes no difference, because Being/existence is indivisible (per Parmenides' arguments). All contingent beings are determinations of existence, but in being grounded upon Being/existence, which makes particular existents possible (being that which underlies them, and thus presupposed in all determinations therein), no addition or negation of an existent can have any genuine impact upon existence as a whole; nothing can come from nothing. Returning to my identification of existence/Being with consciousness given the inseparability of subject and object, existence is eternal, for Being comes from Being, so no action of contingent mortals can have any bearing on that.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:18:49 2023 No.21577933 >>21577917 >given the incoherence of non-existence. Stopped reading there. You don't remember before your birth. That is death. absence of life = death death = before your birth before your birth = you have no memory

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:20:29 2023 No.21577937 The axiological asymmetry doesn't work.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:20:46 2023 No.21577939 >>21577933 Small brain thinking anon. You and I are contingent determinations of existence. We are beings, but Being underlies and precedes all beings. Given my identification of Being or existence with consciousness, the conclusion follows.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:22:56 2023 No.21577945 >>21577939 Nope. You don't remember pre-birth. None of your dude weed gobbledygook is relevant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:23:30 2023 No.21577947 >>21577945 Straw man. I did not say anything close to this.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:26:50 2023 No.21577951

>>21577917
i had the same thought process. but before that i just figured if we die then some other animal would eventually catch up to humans and then they would also have the choice to end their species. so even if we did stop the human race you aren't saving anybody any suffering, they will just be another species instead.
it kinda sucked to realize this bc i was looking forward to death

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:40:11 2023 No.21577982 >>21577917 > nothing can come from nothing Another set of philosophical wank refuted by basic physics. Why is it you niggers think you’re different from any other flat earth nonsense merchant?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:41:56 2023 No.21577987 >>21577982 By nothing I mean something non-existent. To say that something can come from nothing is a violation of the principle of the excluded middle (necessarily, P or not P). Out of nothing, nothing comes.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:48:18 2023 No.21577995 >>21577872 It gets refuted every single time you post it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:54:35 2023 No.21578009 >>21577872 Every time you make this thread you get a shitton of posts refuting the dumb book and you still make the exact same thread.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:56:16 2023 No.21578014
File: 32 KB, 314x500, Can Biotechnology Abolish Suffering?.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21577872
https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.

>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?

>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 07:59:39 2023 No.21578025
File: 181 KB, 1108x1009, no_death.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21577878
This but unironically. There are a lot of plausible mechanisms for how an afterlife could exist, like eternal recurrence, quantum immortality, open individualism, and the simulation hypothesis being true. That being said, what seems to be important is how this reality compared to the "average" reality. If this reality is worse on average than the average reality, any children you prevent from being born will probably be born into a better reality.

https://alwaysasking.com/is-there-life-after-death/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65jdcvSOOjI
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w13yLq16QiM

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:03:23 2023 No.21578037 >>21578025 >>21577933

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:05:13 2023 No.21578043

>>21578025
>If this reality is worse on average than the average reality, any children you prevent from being born will probably be born into a better reality.
There's like, only one very specific mechanism of afterlife out of countless hypothetical ones for which this would be true.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:18:46 2023 No.21578082

I think people pay to much attention to the "better to have never been" aspect of antinatalism. This shouldn't be read literally because there is no non-being often you see anti-natalist say something like "I was ripped from the peaceful void" which is absolutely fucking retarded.

Instead of better to never have been it should instead be read as "Better to never have children"

Why? because we create a being with desires, we leave them to contend with their mortality (death might be very bad, imagine we are in 'hell' for eternity regardless of how we behaved in life) in and a universe beyond their comprehension and with the capacity for immense suffering. I feel that this is worse than murder and I think copulation is temporary lapse of reason (horny) and cognitive dissonance (could you procreate whilst imagining the corpse of the child you are creating festering and rotting away?)

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:24:06 2023 No.21578103 >>21578082 >there is no non-being often you see anti-natalist say something like "I was ripped from the peaceful void" which is absolutely fucking retarded. see >>21577933

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:26:32 2023 No.21578110

>>21577872
The most obvious weakness: anti-natalists pretend to know what death is. They pretend to know that it's the end of consciousness and that there's nothing. Maybe that's true, but how do we know that? We don't. There are theories of quantum immortality, the mystery of near-death experiences (NDE), the Buddhist concept of reincarnation, simulation theory, a general trend towards anti-materialism, thousands of years of afterlife mythologies, at this point in human history the situation seems unclear. To simply pretend to have solved the mystery of existence seems intellectually dishonest.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:31:01 2023 No.21578120 >>21578110 > To simply pretend to have solved the mystery of existence seems intellectually dishonest. literally every religion does that

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:33:17 2023 No.21578128 >>21578120 shut up, you're going to hell, this post will ring in your ears for eternity

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:34:37 2023 No.21578133 >>21577917 >so no action of contingent mortals can have any bearing on that You can choose not to have kids, I'm assuming you'd care about your own flesh and blood at least?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 08:55:52 2023 No.21578190 open-individualism

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 09:19:29 2023 No.21578266 >>21577872 This is refuted by simple game theory. I wouldn't even call his pseud tier. It's just dumb.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 09:55:02 2023 No.21578337 >>21578025 Hory shiet I've literally conceptualized this phenomenon a year ago. Any specific books on this that aren't /x/ tier shit? I only have Penrose's Cycles of Time which is related but not really it

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 10:41:19 2023 No.21578419 >>21578190 If Open Individualism is true, why do I appear to exist as THIS human? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertiginous_question

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 11:53:19 2023 No.21578550 Another thread of >suffering is... LE BAD!

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 11:59:50 2023 No.21578558 File: 12 KB, 306x306, 507.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21577872 Aaah the monthly Benatar thread. You should read material outside your current views anon.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:08:15 2023 No.21578566
File: 271 KB, 1145x835, 1649795180209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The answer to the book is that he claims to have a rational and logical argument throughout the entire book about how the suffering of life is outweighed by the pleasures of life, but he fails to accept the logical conclusion to this: Suicide. If it is true that life is pure suffering and the moments of sparse goodness are not worth all the suffering, then suicide and mass murder becomes *ethical things to do*.

And since he *doesn't* think suicide and mass murder are good things, this means he actually doesn't believe in the logical conclusion to his own arguments. QED: His book sucks.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:09:16 2023 No.21578568 >>21578566 pleasures of life are outweighed by the suffering*

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:09:28 2023 No.21578569 File: 93 KB, 876x290, 1674821314629.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21577872 Btfo by Nick land.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:38:14 2023 No.21578650 >>21577872 >15 years and no one has an answer to this book. Wrong. Read the Masculine and the Feminine, in which all modes of thought and in fact being are reduced to these two key apriori.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:44:41 2023 No.21578668 >>21578569 What does he mean by this?

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:49:42 2023 No.21578678

>>21578337
Funny because i literally came up with this on my own as well some time ago, i posted a wall of text about it on some board and i had like 2 other anons claim the same. Crazy. It may not be really possible to know what will happen after death, but i can be pretty damn sure that infinite unconsciousness is definitely impossible

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:50:39 2023 No.21578679 >>21578668 What do you think he means? Don't you understand what the word utilitarianism means in this context?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:54:05 2023 No.21578689 >>21578679 Yes, but why shouldn't humans care about their suffering? From what position is he rejecting this kind of egotism?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 12:57:02 2023 No.21578698 Twitter is not a suitable platform for philosophical discussion. "The problem with Xism is Yism" is not a serious philosophical claim or counterargument

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:02:25 2023 No.21578714 >>21578689 People who aren't utilitarians are either deontologists or virtue ethicists, I mean use your imagination. He probably either thinks having kids is intrinsically good, or a moral duty.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:05:03 2023 No.21578718 >>21578714 one shouldn't have to use their imagination to make sense of a claim. the claim should be self-evident.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:07:36 2023 No.21578724 >>21578718 Or you know, you're just an NPC who actually lacks imagination. I don't even agree with the guy, but I can perfectly understand someone who hates utilitarianism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:09:44 2023 No.21578729 >>21578724 it's still not a philosophical argument. 'x is bad because... it just IS, okay?' funny that you call me an NPC when youre only capable of a binary state of evaluation

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:11:17 2023 No.21578731 >>21578729 It's a screenshot of a Twitter post retard.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:12:18 2023 No.21578736 >>21577872 It's immediately refuted once you notice it's always and only being pushed on white people and white people only

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:13:38 2023 No.21578743

>>21578731
good god you are fucking not even worth speaking to.
do you even realize Land is writing off an entire book of work with a tweet? somehow you think there's nothing wrong with that, because youre a faggot little zoomer with no intellect or attention. jump back in the toilet of your mom's cunt where you came, spongebob

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:16:32 2023 No.21578747

>>21578714
>People who aren't utilitarians are either deontologists or virtue ethicists
Not really, they could also be nihilists, or some kind of Christian in favour of suffering as a means to spiritual enlightenment, or they could have some neutral position, or be some kind of anti-humanist technologist.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:17:07 2023 No.21578752

>>21578743
Yeah and the entire book's arguments can be reduced to utilitarianism, namely what the anon here says>>21578566. Benatar says life's suffering overshadows life's pleasures by orders of magnitude, therefore inflicting life on someone is wrong. But if you don't agree with this kind of utilitarian calculus, the book's arguments immediately falls flat.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:21:39 2023 No.21578762 >>21578747 All of those are virtue ethics or duty ethics. Even the morality that says there are no rules is a rule.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 13:21:39 2023 No.21578763 >>21578752 he's still a little faggot zoomzoom who needs an app to tell him when to take a shit

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 14:51:27 2023 No.21578979 >>21577872 I love life, I love living, and I love my parents for bringing me into this world

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:04:53 2023 No.21579013 >>21578569 Holy fuck, this is misanthropic radical nihilism.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:47:40 2023 No.21579109

>>21577933
You have no memory now when you were in the womb of your mother but it's not accurate to say you had no perceptions or interactions within that realm (life as you knew and understood it then). Even in this life, you have forgotten many things that you have experienced throughout your years. How can one say that after what we call death there will not be another birthing and awakening into another realm with new perceptions and understanding? How can one say before their conception that they were not?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:50:42 2023 No.21579116 >>21578569 I kneel

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:52:05 2023 No.21579121

>>21577872
It has been 100% refuted, and since it is so easy, I'll gladly do it for you again (I think I've done it in a few of these repeating threads).

I love my life.
Boom, easy.
And to pre-empt the inevitable:
>n-n-n-no you don't!
Uhhhhm, yeah, I do
>c-c-c-cope!
With what? YOUR depression? Sorry, can't, also won't.
>y-y--you don't love your life!
Uhmmmm.. again.. yeah, I do.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 15:55:15 2023 No.21579130 >heh, having kids? I don't think so >wwooooooww why are third world retards flooding my country???

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:11:29 2023 No.21579187 anti-natalism is self refuting

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:13:34 2023 No.21579190 >>21579121 >i love my life You maybe do, but you can't guarantee your children also will.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:13:43 2023 No.21579191
File: 1.46 MB, 2289x1701, 1611312397491.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21577872
No, NDEs are definitionally the endgame of philosophy since they contain the most amount of wisdom. So unironically study NDEs and realize that there actually is an afterlife and that we are eternal and will go to heaven unconditionally when we die. And what NDErs say thoroughly refutes what is written in that book.

Here is a very persuasive argument for why NDEs are real:

https://youtu.be/U00ibBGZp7o

It emphasizes that NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and when people go deep into the NDE, they all become convinced. As this article points out:

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/mysteries-consciousness/202204/does-afterlife-obviously-exist

>"Among those with the deepest experiences 100 percent came away agreeing with the statement, "An afterlife definitely exists"."

Since NDErs are representative of the population as a whole, and they are all convinced, then 100% of the population become convinced that there is an afterlife when they have a sufficiently deep NDE themselves. When you dream and wake up, you instantly realize that life is more real than your dreams. When you have an NDE, the same thing is happening, but on a higher level, as you immediately realize that life is the deep dream and the NDE world is the undeniably real world by comparison.

Or as one person quoted in pic related summarized their NDE:

>"As my soul left my body, I found myself floating in a swirling ocean of multi-colored light. At the end, I could see and feel an even brighter light pulling me toward it, and as it shined on me, I felt indescribable happiness. I remembered everything about eternity - knowing, that we had always existed, and that all of us are family. Then old friends and loved ones surrounded me, and I knew without a doubt I was home, and that I was so loved."

Needless to say, even ultraskeptical neuroscientists are convinced by really deep NDEs.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:15:32 2023 No.21579196 clearly, it's good since it's generating discussion. that's the entire purpose of philosophy

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:25:44 2023 No.21579237 File: 119 KB, 728x546, an.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21577872 >most of the wikihow revolves around not becoming an annoying pseud people don't want to be around Kek.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:30:33 2023 No.21579250 >>21579190 Nah, but the likelihood is high since I am happy, so it's fine to take the chance.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:40:05 2023 No.21579288 >>21577872 I fucking love existing

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:42:16 2023 No.21579295 >>21579288 yeah, i try not to take it for granted and to actually experience it, no matter what. its a gift no matter what.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 16:57:35 2023 No.21579343 File: 108 KB, 1024x768, life lovers.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >I fucking love existing

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 17:00:44 2023 No.21579349 >>21577872 >posts this thread repeatedly >gets BTFO every time >... >CHECK OUT THIS THREAD: UNREFUTED! Kek

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 17:08:34 2023 No.21579380

>>21577872
>antinatalists presuppose to have weighed the sum total of experience
>their ideological core, from which all their premises and prescriptions drop, is based on that claim
>due to the fact the central thesis of antinatalism is impossible to prove, none of the its correlates are in good standing on a solid bed of logic
>therefore it's refuted right out of the gate
Q.E.D.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 17:25:29 2023 No.21579429 >>21578678 Add me to the list of people who years ago conceptualized this exact phenomenon on their own. This was before I was introduced to any philosophy so I had a lot of trouble communicating it.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:03:38 2023 No.21579550 >>21579288 Faggot

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:04:47 2023 No.21579558 >>21579349 It's never been debunked, all I see is cope

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:16:10 2023 No.21579595

I think a lot of anons missed the point of the book. He doesnt care if you’re happy specifically, but most people suffer and have shit lives. But oh what do you anons care? Apparently the world only exist in western perfect countries! So everything in the book is wrong! I fucking can’t stand happy people at times because they wont’t acknowledge other sufferings, be happy as you want I dont care but dont fucking pretend the world is fine and dandy.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:24:47 2023 No.21579619

>>21579595
This, it's exactly like the people who will say shit like "suicide is never justifiable". Such egotistical and narcissistic mindsets that they cannot possibly conceive of the fact that the happiness they may feel does not apply to the entire cosmos.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:36:32 2023 No.21579656 File: 84 KB, 1000x600, Pat-Benatar-GettyImages-74253249-1000x600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21577872 >get divorced from pat benatar >be so assblasted develop entire philosophy to make mankind go extinct LOVE IS A BATTLEFIELD

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:49:16 2023 No.21579714 >>21577933 >If I don't remember it, I never experienced it.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:54:01 2023 No.21579730

>>21579595
>>21579619
The majority of anti-natalist philosophies actually tend to argue that existence itself is inherently bad for humans, not that living in a shithole country is the problem.

Most people don't argue that living in Sudan is some gift from the heavens, they're saying that the circumstances of life often determine ones possibility for happiness. However, a significant portion of anti-natalist philosophers generally tend to argue that this is just another delusion, and that all life is in fact unavoidably miserable.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:54:02 2023 No.21579731

>>21577933
>You don't remember before your birth. That is death.
>death = before your birth
You do realize that is an argument for an afterlife? You came to be from that "nothingness" which was before your birth. So you have no basis to claim that after your death you won't spawn out of that "nothingness" again.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:55:33 2023 No.21579739 >>21577982 >Another set of philosophical wank refuted by basic physics How is it refuted? What is the physical definition of nothing?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 18:58:29 2023 No.21579749 >>21579731 You have no basis to claim the contrary neither

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 19:05:00 2023 No.21579773 >>21579749 I have, given the assumptions of the post I replied to. You already came to be from nothing.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 19:06:38 2023 No.21579779 Learning that David Benatar is from South Africa provides important context for this book.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 19:15:23 2023 No.21579811 File: 117 KB, 578x912, 1590863674776.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21577872 if life is so bad then why do you choose to reincarnate every cycle of rebirth? LMAO checkmate

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 19:16:52 2023 No.21579815

>>21579558
See >>21579380. The reason you think it hasn't been debunked is because you demand it be refuted according to that accepted/claimed by its central premise. True believers are incapable of computing this for what it really is (disingenuous) and confuse an unearned monopoly on the parameters of debate as their premise being irrefutable; they don't realize they're just ideologically possessed. You accept the premise uncritcally and will slide and deflect with cherry-picked examples that affirm it (i.e. attempting to stack the cards through slight of hand and deflect criticism away from the core) instead of responding to criticism that has been made directly toward your central premise.

You can't prove that human existence is negative in aggregate. You can't assert conclusions based on something you cannot prove (especially ones so extreme as to advocate ending the human race). Simple as.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 19:24:40 2023 No.21579841 >>21577872 >15 years and no one has an answer to this book. Because the book itself is dumb.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 19:59:13 2023 No.21579975 Ben-Atar

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:00:30 2023 No.21579980 >>21579811 If antinatalism is wrong why do we chose to be antinatalist in another rebirth?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:02:55 2023 No.21579992 >>21579980 cuz u ig'nant

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:05:50 2023 No.21580003 File: 164 KB, 911x1139, 1674411899249105.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21579731 wat If I won't remember it it's functionally irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:08:29 2023 No.21580016 Can someone refute the eternal return please, I'm experiencing intense negative ontological qualia atm

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:18:46 2023 No.21580051 File: 608 KB, 1115x1593, 0*bNlNeqqEYFkniVP6.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21577872

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:22:01 2023 No.21580061 >>21580003 >If I won't remember it it's functionally irrelevant. Is your whole life functionally irrelevant when you forget everything about yourself in a psychedelic trip or while being wasted?

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:25:06 2023 No.21580072 >>21580061 My man, if I took a substance that permanently deleted all my memory, my life would be functionally over. That person would be a different person.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:31:14 2023 No.21580095 Found the leftoid who doesn't know he's really a libtard: >>21580072

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:32:07 2023 No.21580097 >>21580095 not an argument I accept your concession.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:41:18 2023 No.21580120

>>21580097
I'm a different anon. You assumed people are programmed like machines which is basically what leftoids and libtards promote both directly and indirectly. That a human being is nothing more than the sum total of their experiences on earth--which taken to an extreme demonstrates a denial that agency exists. People have brain damage and become different people because certain parts of the brain are injured or destroyed--however, plenty of people who experience memory disorders don't fundementally change in character. Basically, it's more complicated than "if my memory is erased I become a totally different person" and you're a retard for making that argument. It figures that someone as dumb and shortsighted as you would buy into antinatalism.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:48:04 2023 No.21580143 >>21579343 These two guys look more pleasant to be around with than the cynical autist that is you.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:49:32 2023 No.21580152
File: 22 KB, 500x361, 1535315017694.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21580120
>People have brain damage and become different people because certain parts of the brain are injured or destroyed--however, plenty of people who experience memory disorders don't fundementally change in character.
My friend, no, that is entirely beside my point.
If you could hypothetically have your mind completely wiped, you would no longer be the same you that I am talking to. It is utterly irrelevant that this new person might have traits in common with the old one- because the old one is gone.

If you get a memory wipe before your eternal life in heaven, YOU do not get that eternal reward. Only the new memory accumulator who you may share traits with.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:51:32 2023 No.21580161

>>21580072
>if I took a substance that permanently deleted all my memory, my life would be functionally over.
So your wealth, reputation, friends, family would be functionally irrelevant to that future self who would forget everything?
>That person would be a different person
It would still be you experiencing it though.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:53:27 2023 No.21580167

>>21580016
There is nothing to refute. It's just an idea based on nothing. But unlike most beliefs in an eternal life, the return is not life denying ( like christianity is) but the eternal return is life affirming BUT only to young people. Nietzsche would never talk to a dying person about the eternal return, that would just be cruel.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:55:56 2023 No.21580174

>>21580152
>It is utterly irrelevant that this new person might have traits in common with the old one- because the old one is gone.
It means the old person isn't gone. Nice attempt at sidestepping the actual issue though (typical antinatalist logic: >>21579815).

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:55:59 2023 No.21580175

>>21580152
>If you get a memory wipe before your eternal life in heaven, YOU do not get that eternal reward.
By the same reasoning you can't have an ego death on mushrooms because at the moment you forget everything about yourself.
You conflate memory with agency/subjectivity.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:56:18 2023 No.21580176

>>21580161
>It would still be you experiencing it though.
This is where we disagree, and this covers your first point as well.
Look at it this way, if we had a prior life to this one, but we don't remember it, who gives a fuck? Same with the afterlife.

Yes, it's still "you", but it's like a fresh install of you. No save file exists.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 20:57:36 2023 No.21580182 >>21580175 >>21580174 I don't get why this is such a controversial stance. Read this: >>21580176 >Look at it this way, if we had a prior life to this one, but we don't remember it, who gives a fuck?

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 21:05:36 2023 No.21580212

>>21580176
>This is where we disagree, and this covers your first point as well.
By that reasoning you're not the same person I replied to before, because since then you have gained new memories.
>f we had a prior life to this one, but we don't remember it, who gives a fuck? Same with the afterlife.
So you also don't give a fuck what would happen to you in 20 years? You would be a different person and made from different atoms.
>Yes, it's still "you", but it's like a fresh install of you
If it's still me, I care about what I experience. Btw also by your reasoning you in your dreams are not really you either.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 21:08:23 2023 No.21580220 >>21580212 Not being rude here, you are really straight up missing my point and (seemingly accidently) strawmanning me. I don't know how to make it any clearer than I already have. Let's agree to disagree.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 21:16:49 2023 No.21580247

>>21580220
>you are really straight up missing my point
I addressed precisely what you said.
>and (seemingly accidently) strawmanning me.
Extrapolating your reasoning onto another situation to show its absurdity is not a strawman. And if I'm wrong, you should be able to explain why your reasoning is inapplicable there.
>I don't know how to make it any clearer than I already have.
You don't have to, I addressed precisely what you said.

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 21:25:27 2023 No.21580266 >>21580182 >I don't get why this is such a controversial stance. Because it's simplistic and incorrect.

Anonymous Fri Jan 27 21:34:04 2023 No.21580290

>>21577872
i hate this fucking board. i hate "btfo" and "never refuted" posting. you faggots have never had an original thought in your life. there are countless objections to anti-natalism, but you guys don't read the literature, just one book a year that you hang your entire identity and worldview on afterward. just don't be a utilitarian and you never have to think about this bullshit again. jesus christ

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 21:48:55 2023 No.21580331 >>21579190 Not my problem

>>	Anonymous Fri Jan 27 21:50:54 2023 No.21580339 File: 48 KB, 428x413, 67868687.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21579429 >>21578678 Me as well, exactly one to one how you guys said it What the fuck

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 00:07:31 2023 No.21580796 For real now, no one can or could find a good rebuttal without being a egoistic breeder animal.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 00:10:53 2023 No.21580804 >>21577872 there is no point in arguing with nihilists. Their philosophy is completely meaningless, as ironic as it may seem.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 00:39:05 2023 No.21580886 >>21580804 cope

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 00:42:42 2023 No.21580889 File: 1.53 MB, 2333x825, cope.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21580886

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 00:50:02 2023 No.21580910 >>21580804 being anti-natalist doesn't mean you are nihilist

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 00:51:17 2023 No.21580917 >>21580804 Nihilists don't want to argue with you anyway don't worry

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 00:57:03 2023 No.21580933

>>21578566
>That suicide harms those who are thereby bereaved is part of the tragedy of coming into existence. We find ourselves in a kind of trap. We have already come into existence. To end our existence causes immense pain to those we love and for whom we care.
I also remember that Benatar said that suicide is painful, so some people prefer to continue with their lives even if they suck.
I agree with this last point and include myself among those people.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 00:57:51 2023 No.21580937 >>21580804 >there is no point in arguing with nihilists Correct. Some anon already refuted the entire book here>>21578566 but nobody even responded to the argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:00:19 2023 No.21580944 >>21580937 this is retarded. Suicide/killing causes way more suffering than just living your life. If you fail to understand this, you have an IQ of under 80

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:01:48 2023 No.21580948

>>21580933
>I also remember that Benatar said that suicide is painful, so some people prefer to continue with their lives even if they suck.

Which is a bullshit retort, because he has already claimed that the inherent suffering of life has a negative value, meaning human beings are actually ethically obligated to lessen the suffering, and that specifically by not having children.

But refuses to accept that this also means by analogy that human beings have an ethical obligation to end their own and other people's lives too for the exact same reason.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:02:24 2023 No.21580952 Antinatalists should be fine with being beaten to death on the spot, right?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:03:50 2023 No.21580957 >>21580952 cope

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:03:51 2023 No.21580958

>>21580944
>Suicide/killing causes way more suffering than just living your life.

Suicide/killing causes *some* suffering in the moment yes, but it also ends all potential future suffering from living life. If life is by definition more suffering than it is good, then this means such an act is ethical to do. This is the logical endpoint of his arguments that he never accepts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:04:23 2023 No.21580961 >>21580952 Antinatalists=/=pain enthusiasts.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:07:30 2023 No.21580972 >>21580952 As a natalist, I'm sure you are fine with being forcibly impregnated.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:09:34 2023 No.21580978 >>21580958 >If life is by definition more suffering than it is good I don't agree with this, and althought I haven't read Benatar's book, I doubt that he ever said that either

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:12:14 2023 No.21580990 >>21580978 It's his entire premise of why having children is wrong. You are forcing a life of suffering upon someone who doesn't have a choice.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:13:42 2023 No.21580995 >>21580990 no not sure if you're trolling or a brainlet the anti-natalist argument is that the absence of suffering and pleasure is better than the presence of suffering and pleasure not that somehow suffering is "above" pleasure in life

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:15:21 2023 No.21581003 >>21580995 >the anti-natalist argument is that the absence of suffering and pleasure is better than the presence of suffering and pleasure Yes, exactly, so reread this >>21580958 post again retard, because I'm not going to write it again.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:16:14 2023 No.21581006 >>21581003 okay trolling it is

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:17:30 2023 No.21581011 >>21581006 Predictable antinatalist kvetching as always.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:21:06 2023 No.21581024 >>21580957 >>21580961 >>21580972 A quick bullet to the head, then?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:22:30 2023 No.21581032 >>21578558 They won’t because they’re a faggot

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:24:32 2023 No.21581038 File: 333 KB, 618x467, 1658198479541.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] do we have a bingo yet?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:27:51 2023 No.21581050 >>21581038 Pretty much all of these are arguments and sentiments antinatalists just consistently fail to respond to in any meaningful way, so it's not wonder they keep showing up.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:29:30 2023 No.21581060 >>21581024 Well, antinatalists? You wouldn't mind a quick bullet to the head, would you?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:33:29 2023 No.21581072 >>21581060 cope

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:52:38 2023 No.21581127 >>21581060 I see, so you would prefer to adopt african children?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 01:55:25 2023 No.21581142 >>21581127 I dislike Africans so no But antinatalists would love to die so your analogy is dogshite

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 02:19:27 2023 No.21581221 >>21578025 I really hope eternal recurrence isn't true, I don't want to go through some of the stuff I've been through again :(

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 02:25:31 2023 No.21581243 >>21577872 The answer is it's gay and cringe.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 03:13:53 2023 No.21581372 >>21581221 You wouldn't remember all the times you lived so it wouldn't really be again. The idea causes more pain but I can see how it can also be life affirming.

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 03:13:59 2023 No.21581373

>>21581003
And this >>21579380 refutes that which, again, antinatalists ignored. They get refuted in every thread, ignore it, and then post the "NEVER REFUTED THO!" thread again like retarded ideologues. You can't prove the sum total of human experience amounts to suffering. This means that you can't assert any corollaries/conclusions based on your assumption because it's rightly rejected for that reason. You can't assert that the thesis be refuted on it's own terms because those terms have no foundation--demanding this is a childish attempt to monopolize the perameters of the debate to protect the thesis from being rejected.

Further, even if the thesis is entertained, you wont accept that the logical outcome of your beliefs result in absurdity (i.e. suicide to end suffering). You simply assert suicide causes harm and things magically change once you're already alive (which means you're ironically undermining your primary thesis in that your building a case that continuing life, despite the assumption it creates suffering, now has value).

You guys are complete retards.

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 03:17:43 2023 No.21581379

People don't consent about being born, so that can be considered a form of violence and abuse.

Beside, you never know what can happen to someone in life, so basically your playing russian roulette with someone's life.

Only retarded breeders can't understand that, to selfish and blinded by animalistic urge.

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 03:45:05 2023 No.21581442

>>21581379
>People don't consent about being born, so that can be considered a form of violence and abuse.
There are many people who appriciate the life they were given. You appriciate the fact you're alive on some level or else you would have killed yourself. Therefore, your basic premise is fundementably flawed, not broadly applicable, and you can't assert the conclusions that flow from it.
>Beside, you never know what can happen to someone in life, so basically your playing russian roulette with someone's life.
If you can't know what happens in someone's life you have no right to assert all life shouldn't exist. You can't prove the claim that the aggregate of human experience is suffering and, once again, can't assert that people argue based on such a foundation. You're arguing in favor of an extreme outcome and you can't even prove the foundational basis of your argument.
>Only retarded breeders can't understand that, to selfish and blinded by animalistic urge.
Only disingenuous faggots argue like that. They're blinded by an ideologically based intellectual pride that renders them too myopic to understand just how stupid their argument plays out.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 09:48:16 2023 No.21582297 >>21581379 Why do you need a new line with space in between for every new sentence?

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 10:17:17 2023 No.21582327 Living is Reddit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 10:19:43 2023 No.21582331 >>21582327 existencebros, not like this...

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 17:29:41 2023 No.21583393 >>21582327 anon, living is dying is living

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 17:37:19 2023 No.21583416 >>21579595 Happiness is relative. There are kids in Africa running around in mud huts that will never consider suicide and there are millionaires in the west that loook like they have it all and neck themselves.

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 17:37:52 2023 No.21583418

>>21581379
>People don't consent about being born, so that can be considered a form of violence and abuse.
That is very retarded. You are alive and can do with that life whatever you wish - if you really hated existing and saw no value in it you could've killed yourself by now
>to selfish and blinded
If you're going to give a philosophical argument on the level of a depressed 14 year old, at least have proper spelling to give the impression you've read more than just r/antinatalism

Anonymous Sat Jan 28 17:45:31 2023 No.21583442

My favourite part of the book is how obsessed with shitting and pooping he is.
He literally calculates how much time the average person spends on the toilet as part of a serious argument for why life isn't worthwhile.
The man probably has chronic constipation or something and that's why he wants to kill himself.
Can't blame him. I would too.

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 17:48:08 2023 No.21583450 >>21581442 based

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 19:33:15 2023 No.21583817 >>21579191 Maybe I should become vegan

>>	Anonymous Sat Jan 28 19:34:24 2023 No.21583824 >>21580910 Wrong

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 01:55:55 2023 No.21585240

>>21581006
I'm not that anon and that's obviously not trolling. Why wouldn't an anti-natalist advocate for mass suicide or mass extinction of the human race if it happens quick enough that it's painless? You believe the existence of suffering and pleasure is untenable and bringing any further beings into it is unethical, OK so surely you won't have any problem with instantly stopping all of the suffering right now for everybody. That would solve the problem at the crux of your belief.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 01:58:51 2023 No.21585246 >>21581221 Yeah I'm with you anon. I think I'm good on this life lol. I don't care if I don't remember that I've already lived it 10 million times.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 02:01:54 2023 No.21585264
File: 24 KB, 540x353, fertilization.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21583442
Some of my life's most peaceful, relaxing, and simply happy moments have been spent on the shitter with a good book or something. I don't know what this humorless bastard wants out of life but it will never give it to him; no wonder he's an anti-natalist

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 02:06:39 2023 No.21585286

>>21580944
>>21580933
aided suicide can be done perfectly painlessly. Hell, you can even make it pleasurable and comfortable with the use of opiates for example. The argument that "durr suicide is painful" falls through with the slightest examination.

Would all the antinatalists take up the offer of a pleasurable end to their oh-so-perpetual suffering? I doubt it.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 02:20:16 2023 No.21585339

>>21585286
>Would all the antinatalists take up the offer of a pleasurable end to their oh-so-perpetual suffering? I doubt it.
Of course not. They're scared. Their belief that the suffering in life outweighs everything else shows that they are people driven by fear and neuroses. I'm not happy with my life right now and I'm not against the idea of killing myself if things get bad enough, but these people, man. I feel bad for them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 03:22:48 2023 No.21585534 >>21577917 Antinatalism is just cowardice with extra steps. Every antinatalist feels inadequate to protect any children they might have and thus stems the neuroticism. Name one king or absolute ruler without children. I’ll wait.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 03:55:06 2023 No.21585632 >>21578120 Religions don't make their claims based on pure reason

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 03:56:50 2023 No.21585636 >>21579731 Plato talks about this exact topic, I believe.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 04:02:29 2023 No.21585657 >>21578714 I think if you're an utilitarian you assume that pleasure and suffering can be talked about in a more or less objective way and calculations can be made with it. Don't think I agree with that. All suffering is not the same.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 04:25:55 2023 No.21585715 >Oxford Lul

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 04:37:54 2023 No.21585743

>>21579714
Yes. And I can ask my mom and my dad and the Jewish doctor that cut my foreskin and everyone in the hospital twenty five fucking years ago if I lived before and they will have said no. Kill yourself with your retarded "life before conception" sewage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 05:00:50 2023 No.21585804 File: 24 KB, 600x600, book.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] still hasn't been refuted, it's actually kind of amazing how much seethe this objectively correct and irrefutable book has caused

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 05:03:39 2023 No.21585819 >>21585804 see >>21578566

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 05:11:32 2023 No.21585842 >>21577872 I reject utilitarianism; life isn't about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, therefore the book is wrong.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 05:11:44 2023 No.21585846 >>21585819 not being born in the first place =/= being born and then committing suicide try again

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 05:13:58 2023 No.21585853 >>21585846 >existence bad >b-but ending existence also bad!!

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 09:56:30 2023 No.21586432

>>21585853
>creating life means you create suffering
That's one sided.
>you don't know though!
Neither do you.
>so all life should end...
That's extreme and you haven't proven life creates more suffering than joy.
>if you don't exist you don't feel either!
I don't accept that corollary because you haven't proven the aggregate of all life is suffering. Also, logic follows you kill yourself.
>no because I'm alive and that creates harm!
So you value your life and disregard your own point about nonexistence meaning suffering doesn't exist.
>for others though!
Again, you're demonstrating your life has value and I can add the corollary you kill others as well.
>...
So are you going to give me a reason not to reject your fundamental premise? Will you at least acknowledge the counter narrative I've established that underscores the logical inconsistency of your position and demonstrates your fundemental premise is weakened by your own reasoning?
>...
Hello?
>UNREFUTED!

Anti-natalists are fucking retards.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 10:14:15 2023 No.21586459 >>21577872 My counterargument is that I enjoy being alive.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 10:18:06 2023 No.21586471

Having a child is worse than murder, It is worse than shooting up a school and killing 26 people.

Having children is an affirmation of all evil: rape, murder. disease, deformity..... you could not perform copulation while imagining the future corpse of your child festering and decaying . Accordingly copulation is a temporary lapse of reason (horny) and cognitive dissonance. You may try to disguise your loathsome action as something sacred by praying or having loving sex only in missionary position for the purpose of procreation, but this only strengthens the idea that copulation is despicable and requires a disguise in order to seem good. Making children can only be a result of delusion or ignorance.
If you could procreate while keeping these things in mind you'd truly be evil.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 11:27:21 2023 No.21586577

This books cause some many NIGGER to seethe just by saying that MAYBE having children isn't a go idea and it's more moral dubious. Kek. Just look for all those replies saying to "kill urself" or "you don't know nothing!" Kek. Imagine being so butthurt by the idea of someone saying"yeah, i don't like the idea of having children", like it trigger some deep seated animalistic rage or something, lmao.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 11:28:25 2023 No.21586579 >>21586459 Yes, you do. But you don't know if your children would.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 11:33:42 2023 No.21586588 >>21586471 >Having children is an affirmation of all evil: rape, murder. disease, deformity not really, and the rest of your post becomes meaningless rambling after that sentence

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 11:34:27 2023 No.21586590 >>21586579 They will if I raise them to mot be navel gazing "thinkers". The whole problem of antinatalism is just too much time spent indoors being a faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 11:36:00 2023 No.21586593 >>21586579 They will always have the option of ending their existence at any point if they do not enjoy it. So they get the option to exist when you think about it

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 11:40:28 2023 No.21586600 >>21586588 >our post becomes meaningless fuck off nihilist, cope.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 11:42:48 2023 No.21586604 >>21586600 ironic

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 11:46:17 2023 No.21586611 >>21586593 Hell exist and everything which dies goes there for eternity regardless of good deeds and there is no savior

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 11:48:46 2023 No.21586618 >>21586611 Heaven exists and hell does not therefore being born is good because everything that dies goes to heaven.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 12:00:10 2023 No.21586649 >>21586593 Imagine unironically thinking like this, holy fuck, this niggas want to be a father, lmao, antinatalism are right. I think for the better future of your children, don't have anyone.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 12:01:33 2023 No.21586653 >>21586590 >"Just go outside, bro!" Do nigga really think that it's that simple?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 12:02:47 2023 No.21586658 >>21586649 Thank you, I'll think of you when I'm fucking my gf raw next weekend. It makes me so horny that me impregnating a woman makes you cucks seethe in agony.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 12:03:53 2023 No.21586660 >>21586658 Lmao, feel Pitty to have been bro from such a Shitty nigga, typical egoistic NIGGER.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 12:05:24 2023 No.21586665 >impregnating a women so that your progeny can be a slave to the demiurge Yikes!

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 12:06:47 2023 No.21586670 >>21586660 The funniest part is, you'll still be miserable over this years ahead from now while I'll be living a happy family life full of love.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 12:11:12 2023 No.21586682 >>21586611 I'm starting to think that this is how it actually works.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 12:39:10 2023 No.21586728

>>21586471
wow.... this is irrefutable.
Creating a child means manifesting something: with needs, desires and the potential for unimaginable suffering. All in an incomprehensible universe which by all evidence is uncaring and without any inherit meaning.

You have to be evil and stupid to have children.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:01:44 2023 No.21586781 >>21586728 samefag

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:03:02 2023 No.21586784 >>21586781 So what? Open individualism we are all samefags

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:04:24 2023 No.21586787 >>21586653 >Refuses to go outside and form connections because of memes >4chan >is an antinatalist

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:06:30 2023 No.21586793 >>21586579 Yes, I do. You have no reason to assume they will not be. Despite what these sort of people say the overwhelming majority of people are not depressed or mentally ill.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:18:04 2023 No.21586831 >>21586784 >write post >reply to own post, attempting to manufacture public perception and concensus age old trick. And antinatalism is very much not irrefutable and has indeed been refuted on this very thread a multitude of times.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:23:43 2023 No.21586844 Can't I just say I'm selfish and have kids anyway?

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:27:41 2023 No.21586853
File: 191 KB, 720x846, tumblr_c7174ae2f0bbc376e873fbff7b315a71_c007214f_1280.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21577872
but "I" never existed anyway. all decisions came to me, my circumstance, my eyes, my body, and everything that happened in "my" life came to me. And what "I" call "now" is inexistent as well, and that is all I have.
There is no one who dies and no one who is born. Everything just happens right now and nothing is separate.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:30:44 2023 No.21586861 >>21579595 You have never left the first world if you believe people are less happy in the second or third.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:35:12 2023 No.21586868
File: 80 KB, 750x733, 161206778_2850096565241733_1710686012731730110_n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21586844
yes, antinatalism is futile, existence itself spits in the face of antinatalism. People like you will always win, the world belongs to the delusional and insensitive. Our only hope is transhumanist paradise engineering
>>21586831
You haven't addressed my points at all. I can probably object to antinatalism better than any of these lousy attempts, because believe it or not antinatalist don't actually want to be antinatalist

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:53:55 2023 No.21586914 >>21577872 Touch grass

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:55:12 2023 No.21586917

>>21586868
Very well. I'll humor you then.

>Creating a child means manifesting something: with needs, desires and the potential for unimaginable suffering.
Yes; and also with the potential for unimaginable happiness and love. Potential is not guaranteed. We have no way of knowing whether a child that is born will have a happy life or a miserable life, and both happiness and misery are impossible to measure to begin with. You can try to turn it into some utilitarian argument but that argument soon falls through after the realization that measurement cannot be done as if you were calculating a company's finances.
>All in an incomprehensible universe which by all evidence is uncaring and without any inherit meaning.
I was going to laugh at you for being a retarded nihilist but you added (misspelled) the word "inherent" so instead I'll just surmise that that's your perception and other people may have a very different view of what the meaning of existence is. Who knows, maybe your child would become deeply religious and they'll find a lot of meaning the universe? No way of knowing beforehand.
>Having children is an affirmation of all evil: rape, murder. disease, deformity
Blatantly false statement as childbirth doesn't immediately follow as a result of rape; nor is a child or a mother necessarily murdered; nor is a child necessarily born with a deformity. Disease, sure, I'll give you that. Death too follows birth eventually, but there is still life. None of the aforementioned are necessarily good or evil, but you cannot without some sort of cognitive dissonance believe that both life and death are evil, because life is existence and death is non-existence. There is no inbetween, things either exist or they don't exist. Unless you mean to imply that everything is evil regardless of whether it exists or not in which case I would hazard a guess that you might be the most pessimistic person I have ever witnessed. But I'm leaning on cognitive dissonance.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 13:56:55 2023 No.21586927 >>21577872 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnnOhZuny_M

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:18:53 2023 No.21586980 >>21586787 >That level of projection Kek,

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:27:10 2023 No.21587004

>>21577872
It's called natural selection, my dude.

Anti-natalism is self-contradictory. You don't have kids, you don't continue your ideas, your dumbass idea ends with you. Life will always value life, and your dumbass book of death is only ever going to appeal to the one-foots-already-in-the-grave, the decrepit, the losers.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:29:45 2023 No.21587010 File: 618 KB, 800x1336, antinatalism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:32:55 2023 No.21587018 >>21586980 All ANs have is one line answers and this thread makes it clear.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:33:45 2023 No.21587021

>>21585240
>Why wouldn't an anti-natalist advocate for mass suicide or mass extinction of the human race if it happens quick enough that it's painless?
and do you have any way to make that real retard?
besides, I like my life and I don't want to die. As I said earlier antinatalism doesn't imply nihilism

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:35:36 2023 No.21587025

>>21587010
>performing the act will not yield the intended result
Cope. Yes it will. You will no lo get suffer from existing.
The most common rebuke is simply "prove that existing is weighted towards suffering" and it is to this day completely unrefuted by antinatalists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:37:21 2023 No.21587029 >>21587021 Utilitarianism of any kind is nihilism if you take Ns pov which I'm assuming most in the thread do.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:44:51 2023 No.21587046 >>21587025 >Yes it will Source? Your second point is irrelevant.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:47:19 2023 No.21587058

>>21581379
>People don't consent about being born, so that can be considered a form of violence and abuse.

No it can't because you have to exist first to in order to be abused and subjected to violence. This is simply an incoherent piece of sophistry by antinatalists.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:49:04 2023 No.21587064 >>21587010 All of these start from the premise that existence is already bad and every argument should convince you that it is in fact good, why should anyone start from that premise?

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:50:45 2023 No.21587072
File: 690 KB, 498x371, pepe-middle-finger.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>21581032
Yeah I'm getting real tired of OPs shit now. OP posts this thread every month like he's on his period. He has been spoken to in good faith far too many times over the last year or so. Many of his idiotic counter points have been refuted. But he continues to simmer in his own feces.
It is possible OP is impotent. Or he lived an extremely cloistered life, which led him to inflate every minor setback to a disease of humanity. Or this is his cry for help. Or simple boredom.
Everyone, please do OP a favor and stop responding to him. Let this thread die. Sage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:51:28 2023 No.21587075 >>21587072 Sounds like he's just like every 4chan user desu

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:51:37 2023 No.21587076

>>21587046
You want a source that suicide will end your existence?
The second point isn't irrelevant at all - it's the reason antinatalists always fall back on this cringe "gotcha" style arguing - you can't provide evidence or proof that the core claim of your entire thesis is valid.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:56:42 2023 No.21587091 >>21587076 >You want a source that suicide will end your existence? Yes. Also, the total amount of Evil is absolutely irrelevant. Unless you would accept an infinity of Evil, there is no reason to accept any quantity, no matter how small.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:57:20 2023 No.21587094 >>21577872 The sheer egotistical arrogance of claiming life to be worthless through its own lens never fails to amaze me. Its the exact same sickness of the soul that causes men who can't get laid to form incel / rp communities.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 14:59:00 2023 No.21587099 >>21587064 Lifesuckers themselves acknowledge that being is Evil, and only justify it through venality, whether sensuous or intellectual, a fetish for change.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:00:42 2023 No.21587103 >>21587058 Totally absurd. Suppose that one is born with AIDS, could one be said to not suffer from AIDS simply because one has never been in a state of non-AIDS?

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:00:55 2023 No.21587104

>>21587091
>Yes
So you're fine with antinatalism in a metaphysical model that includes a conscious afterlife and you wonder why people think you're a pseud?
>The total amount of evil is irrelevant
Not if you're an antinatalists because you're all utilitarian. At this point I'm convinced you're just trolling.
>there's no reason to accept any quantity, no matter how small
Deontology is incompatible with your beliefs.
Address the second point. Further silence will be regarded as concession.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:02:02 2023 No.21587107 >>21587103 There are plenty of people who autoimmune diseases that aren't whining faggot. Give it a go.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:03:09 2023 No.21587108

>>21586917
Thanks for humouring
>We have no way of knowing whether a child that is born will have a happy life or a miserable life
I feel gambling with a beings existence like this immoral
>happiness and misery are impossible to measure to begin with.
I posit a question: Is it permissible for 10 people to torture a person if they delight in doing so? since 10 people will say they had a great time and only 1 will say that it was misery? Because existence is basically like this. And if you were the person being tortured would you still say it is permissible because it is 10 to 1?
>All in an incomprehensible universe which by all evidence is uncaring and without any inherit meaning.
Maybe the meaning is to die, that seems to be what we are here to do.
>Having children is an affirmation of all evil: rape, murder. disease, deformity
I'm saying that these evils are inherit to existence and we cannot exist without them. So someone that affirms existence necessarily affirms these evils. I used the example that someone would find it difficult to copulate while thinking of these. As a result of copulation these evils are given life. The child of copulation is like a votive offering to a beast (the world). If the child resulting of the copulation is not raped, disease or deformed their children or their children's children.. (ad infinum) will be. Or perhaps the child of the copulation will be a murderer or their children's children will be murderers, infact it's guaranteed because as I said these evils are existence and cannot be separated.
> None of the aforementioned are necessarily good or evil
And you brand me a retarded nihilist? You sound like a moral nihilist, but I agree life is not necessarily good or bad, Life is Life. But we naturally are inclined to think of things as being good or bad and I don't want my children to have to deal with that.

My antinatalism is personal, I don't want children because I'd feel immensely guilty if they were to hurt. People always seem to take it as an attack but for me it just play; a philosophical exercise. I'm not an advocate I'm not trying convince others because it is futile.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:04:09 2023 No.21587114

>>21587108
And here are someone copes I have to challenge my own antinatalism.
- There is meaning in our existence unbeknownst to us
- Suffering is not as bad as we imagine it to be
- Death is actually an incredibly good thing (despite our anxiety)
- Experience is inherently good even we are suffering (like we are learning a lesson or something?)
- There is something like Apocatastasis where everything returns to it's perfect condition
- Death as mercy: because if it is like nothing ever existed at all it would mean that the suffering did not exist and even if the person uttered that they wish they were never born, that utterance would also not exist.
- We are here by choice we just don't remember choosing; perhaps life is like a performance for a theater we played our role so perfectly that we had forgotten that we were merely acting.
- Our human brains are not adequate to discuss these matters so we shouldn't bother.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:05:15 2023 No.21587117

>>21587104
>So you're fine with antinatalism in a metaphysical model that includes a conscious afterlife and you wonder why people think you're a pseud?

Extremely incoherent sentence. Rephrase. Your second point is not much better. The only utilitarians are the lifesuckers, desperately hoping that sucking life hard enough will allow them to stop sucking life.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:05:27 2023 No.21587118 >>21587108 >I feel gambling with a beings existence like this immoral I disagree, I enjoy the challenges of life, my son will be half me so I assume he will as well.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:06:49 2023 No.21587121 >>21587107 Totally irrelevant to my point. Can congenital AIDS be said to be categorically non-pathological simply because it is congenital? Obviously not.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:11:30 2023 No.21587133

>>21587103
>could one be said to not suffer from AIDS simply because one has never been in a state of non-AIDS?

That's not what the argument is saying. The argument says people who have children are doing something *ethically wrong*, e.g harming "a person" by simply bringing them into existence, and this is pure sophistry because you cannot cause abuse or violence against someone who does not yet exist.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:13:05 2023 No.21587135

>>21587118
I come from an exhaustive line of people who loved life and saw no wrong in having children (including my own parents of course) and all their efforts end with me lmao. Maybe your children's descendants 200 years from now will be like me and end your direct bloodline. I don't really understand why it's important to continue the bloodline in the first place. I guess most people who do think it's important don't think about it either. To me having children seems like a human sacrifice to a evil world.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:14:12 2023 No.21587141 >>21587117 Thank you for conceding the second point. Now stop pretending to not understand the first.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:14:27 2023 No.21587142 >>21587135 Because it is our duty to make the world better and to ascend to a higher form of life.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:15:25 2023 No.21587145

>>21587133

What is the relevance of one being or not being prior to abuse? If one is before birth, then the abuse which coincides with birth is abuse. If one is not before birth, then the abuse which coincides with birth is exactly the same abuse. Since that which is being abused is not the pre-born, whether real or imagined, bu the born.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:16:32 2023 No.21587147 >>21587141 You are a cretin, probably ESL too. Stop replying.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:18:41 2023 No.21587151 >>21587145 >What is the relevance of one being or not being prior to abuse? The relevance is a subject experiencing the harm you retard.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:19:53 2023 No.21587155

>>21587147
No. Now stop avoiding the question. I'll make it simpler:
If conscious life does not end at death then what is the purpose of antinatalism? If you do not believe this to be the case and conscious life does end at death then explain why suicide will not solve the problem of your suffering.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:20:16 2023 No.21587157 >>21587151 Since said subject is the born, not the unborn, what difference does it make if the unborn is real or not?

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:20:42 2023 No.21587158

>>21587072
All anons engaging with OP, read the post to which this is a reply. No point talking to him. He should just kill himself and reduce the overall suffering. But I'm sure he will weasel his way out of this too with various sophistries and gotcha replies.
No point arguing with OP.
Stop responding to him anons and let this thread die.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:26:14 2023 No.21587164 >>21587157 Because there is no such condition or mode of existence as not being. If you disagree refute Heidegger.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:27:04 2023 No.21587165 File: 28 KB, 554x772, 1674819521065371.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >But I'm sure he will weasel his way out of this too with various sophistries and gotcha replies.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:27:22 2023 No.21587167 >>21586579 Yes, you do, but …. You’ve already conceded the argument dumbass

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:28:33 2023 No.21587174 >>21587155 In the vulgar sense, no "purpose" at all, since it is a Moral position, antithetic to worldly venality. In the refined sense, to renounce Causality and confess that all being is absolutely Occasional, toward a proper anti-life Theology.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:30:38 2023 No.21587178 >>21587164 And how is this relevant to abuse? Since, again, it is the born who is, and is abused, not the unborn, whose status is irrelevant to the abuse of the born.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:32:46 2023 No.21587180 >>21587174 >renounce causality OK I'm done you're completely retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:32:57 2023 No.21587181 >>21578566 Anti-natalists are utilitarians when it comes to the suffering game, it's fucking bizarre. And they get awfully caught up in a pleasure/pain dichotomy, they're just failed hedonists.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:33:59 2023 No.21587183

>>21587157
>Since said subject is the born, not the unborn

How many times do you want me to repeat myself? Concepts of harm and suffering require a subject that already exists to experience them, so saying someone is guilty of being a violent abuser just for creating a person is just asinine.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:34:23 2023 No.21587184 >>21587178 >How is this relevant to abuse I'm not the anon you were responding to. Just pointing out that there is no such thing as an "unborn", even in potential space - you either will or will not reproduce.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:35:09 2023 No.21587188

>>21587108
>I feel gambling with a beings existence like this immoral
I feel that it's not immoral, because upon development of the psyche the being has the self-determination to decide whether they want to continue living or not. I, therefore, give the opportunity to choose between existence and non-existence to a being. I too have been given this opportunity and so have you, and we both have chosen existence so I'd say our respective parents made the right choice. More often than not it is, as most people opt for life.
>Is it permissible for 10 people to torture a person if they delight in doing so?
I wouldn't say it is because I think violence for the sake of pleasure is wrong.
>Because existence is basically like this.
How so?
>Maybe the meaning is to die, that seems to be what we are here to do.
Maybe, maybe not. Nobody can know for sure so it's up to each individual to find their own answer.
>I'm saying that these evils are inherit to existence and we cannot exist without them. So someone that affirms existence necessarily affirms these evils.
None of the things you mentioned is unavoidable for any given being. The only thing that's certain in life is death. Just because rape, murder, disease and deformity can happen does not mean it will.
>The child of copulation is like a votive offering to a beast (the world). If the child resulting of the copulation is not raped, disease or deformed their children or their children's children.. (ad infinum) will be. Or perhaps the child of the copulation will be a murderer or their children's children will be murderers
Perhaps, perhaps not. I'm no determinist so I cannot agree with you. There may be an increasingly high likelihood that one of these things occurs as time goes on but it is not guaranteed. And when or if such things happen it still doesn't prove anything about whether that being should have been born or not.
>You sound like a moral nihilist
Perhaps I was being too relativistic. Upon reexamination, I will say that I think rape is wrong because it is violence for the sake of pleasure. So I will actually walk back on that statement. Murder can be a more murky moral dilemma as I think there are some cases where it could be morally justifiable. Disease and deformity are sorrowful and painful, but I wouldn't think they are moral.

>My antinatalism is personal, I don't want children because I'd feel immensely guilty if they were to hurt.
Perhaps I am selfish but I want to have children largely because I believe raising a family will bring happiness and love to my life even at the risk of potential suffering for both me and my family. I will of course have great consideration for my children's happiness after they are born too. I wish for them to share in the gift of life as I have, and as my parents and their parents and ancestors did.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:35:11 2023 No.21587189 >>21587184 Exactly. Hence, the absolute irrelevance of any unborn state to the abuse of the born.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:37:35 2023 No.21587196

>>21587189
Friend, I understand you are impotent. I understand that you desperately tried to have a baby with your significant other, but the pain of failure caused you to become jaded and view the entirety of human existence with such cynicism.
I recommend you visit a fertility clinic. Then visit a psychiatrist. Take care.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:38:24 2023 No.21587198 File: 17 KB, 839x956, hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21587183 Yes, and said subject exists insofar as he is born, and is being abused insofar as he is born. The pre-birth state is totally irrelevant.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:39:05 2023 No.21587202 >>21587189 Because being precedes experience. Being born is not being abused. Suffering is a state that can only be experienced by beings. There is no state of non-being short of suicide. You are solving nothing by not reproducing.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:39:55 2023 No.21587203 >>21587196 Can't you at least be creative and pretend to be ESL like the last guy?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:40:07 2023 No.21587205 >>21587198 >Born (unabused) This is the category most living humans fall under.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:42:31 2023 No.21587213 >>21587205 One is abused insofar as one is born. The lifesuckers themselves concede the point and fabricate the red herring of the, admittedly absurd, unborn state and ascribe it to the Antinatalist position.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:43:09 2023 No.21587214 The dude unironically needed to have kids.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:43:55 2023 No.21587215

>>21587198
You're a fucking retard who can't read. Read this one more:>>21581379

>People don't consent about being born, so that can be considered a form of violence and abuse.

This is the argument. The argument isn't "By being born, you are being abused", the argument is that people don't consent to being, and therefore it is violence and abuse to create them. And this is sophistry because concepts of consent and harm only exist when people ALREADY EXIST AND HAVE LEGAL AND MORAL RIGHTS.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:45:07 2023 No.21587219

>>21587213
>One is abused insofar as one is born.
You have not proven nor evidenced this.
>The lifesuckers themselves concede the point
Where?
>Unborn state
Because this is central to the theme of the book - that you should not bring life into the world to suffer.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:45:23 2023 No.21587221

>>21587203
I understand that I touched a nerve. But impotence is a curable condition. Please visit the nearest fertility clinic. Stop wasting time in this thread.
Also, you should see a therapist. You have deep seated resentment. It shows in your retorts and your behavior. You inflate every minor pain into a scourge on humanity.
Stop wasting time in this thread. Go see a fertility professional and a therapist. Go.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:46:31 2023 No.21587223 >>21587215 >the argument is that people don't consent to being Nor do its parents consent - consent is a meaningless game that people who are not fatalist play.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:47:13 2023 No.21587224 >>21587223 Move the goalposts more fag.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:47:18 2023 No.21587225

>w-what do you mean t-that my children can fucking suffer a lot? I don't hecking care! Just gonna pop out more of those children, i don't have any passion for them, just wanna pop out more!
>Why?

>i don't know, is that what animal do right! Just reproduce without think about the possibly suffer that can have! Just pop more of those thing out! They can sort themselves out! I'm just another selfish retarded breeder that can't comprehend that people are different from and can suffer a lot more or are born with difficult.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:48:16 2023 No.21587229 >>21587224 >All responses come from the same poster

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:49:07 2023 No.21587232 >>21587229 I know it's you because you type in the same schizo retard way.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:50:33 2023 No.21587238 >>21587232 It's me because I'm me. Saying "it's you" shows a lack of theory of mind. But I'm not the same anon you responded to.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:50:44 2023 No.21587241

>>21587229
>while OP has been going on about anti-natalism for a year and a half, posting this thread every month like he's on his period, despite receiving numerous refutations and good faith arguments.
I get it friend. But please go to the nearest infertility clinic and therapist. Snarky retorts are fine. But they wont help you deal with your 2 big issues.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:52:11 2023 No.21587249 >>21587215 This is a terrible argument, much worse than the one I am replying to. Your Legality and Morality are totally destitute. For example, slavery was considered both Legal and Moral.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:54:04 2023 No.21587257 >>21587249 Changes nothing about what I said. People who don't exist yet don't have any rights nor moral weight precisely because they don't exist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:56:52 2023 No.21587268 >>21581379 Scrolling up - again being precedes experience. Consent can only be given by a being that already exists. Life is a gift my friend. Do you really feel this is not the case? I hope that you are trolling.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:57:28 2023 No.21587273

>>21587188
I think that suicide is a blessing if there ever was one. Nature has gifted our intellect the use of poisonous plants to hasten our death, not only that but we can fast to death devouring ourselves without having to use anything external. But the terror is that we can be robbed of this blessing while alive!
Here is an example of a guy who was robbed of his ability to kill himself: https://metro.co.uk/2017/10/26/mums-heartbreaking-photos-of-son-starved-of-oxygen-after-suicide-attempt-7028654/
He botched his suicide attempt and became a vegetable, he was force feed with a tube to his throat. He was asked by his mother if he still wanted to die, he answered with his eyes "yes" he was kept alive by against his will. This is all the result of his mother choosing to fuck. Eventually death did take him though.

Suicide is like consolation for existence, but it is not perfect, we hurt ourselves, our family and maybe even go to hell, it's terrible thing to have to contemplate.

>I wouldn't say it is because I think violence for the sake of pleasure is wrong.
I think existence itself is violent act for the pleasure of living, we must eat we hurt others without intending to. I also think parenting is awful. Most parents manipulate their children and are like gigantic bullies.
>Just because rape, murder, disease and deformity can happen does not mean it will.
Anything which can happen will happen. My point is something like this will happen eventually as a result of having children. I feel that I would basically be culpable.

Another thing that frightens me is the potential of hell I cannot understand why Muslims would have children when they believe in such a thing as an eternal hell. They are not punished for not having children so it should be obvious that having children is questionable. An eternal hell is such an obscene thing and it frightens me deeply.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:57:54 2023 No.21587275

>>21587219

The "evidence" is already provided by the lifesuckers. They concede that life is Evil and justify it by, first, claiming that there is no pre-birth state and, second, claiming that life will be redeemed in the (metaphysical) future. At no point do lifesuckers justify in the here and now, since it cannot be.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 15:59:17 2023 No.21587278 >>21587257 Indeed, it's still just as idiotic and Evil. Australian aboriginals were considered wildlife, by the same measure. Do you, therefore, agree that they were not abused? Cretin.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:00:55 2023 No.21587282 >>21587278 Aboriginals and slaves were already people who existed you fucking bad faith arguing sperg.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:01:38 2023 No.21587284 >>21587221 >repeating the same shitty joke about not begetting an other Textbook lifesucker autism.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:02:28 2023 No.21587287

>>21587275
>The "evidence" is already provided by the lifesuckers. They concede that life is Evil and justify it by, first, claiming that there is no pre-birth state and, second, claiming that life will be redeemed in the (metaphysical) future. At no point do lifesuckers justify in the here and now, since it cannot be.
Again - where? Link some posts from natalists conceding that it is abuse to be born?
More to the point it doesn't matter what is or is not conceded in a debate. This is how we ended up with people believing in mad wank like platonic forms. Can you providence proof or evidence that being born is to be abused?

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:06:40 2023 No.21587299

>>21587284
Look if the pain of existence is too much for you, MAID is always an option.
But I know you don't want to do that.
So visit a fertility clinic and a therapist. You've put your psyche on display for all of us to see. Its embarrasing. I'm being very gentle with my responses.
GO TO A FERTILITY CLINIC AND A THERAPIST. Stop this juvinile bullshit.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:10:03 2023 No.21587309 OP in all seriousness if you're really feeling this depressed and bitter seek professional help. I've been there. It works.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:11:11 2023 No.21587313

>>21587282

You said (>>21587215) that abuse is contingent on "already existing", something I not only agree with, but claim that, going even further, abuse and being are synonymous. Now you've introduced the "having legal and moral rights" clause, which, as I've said, seems to make the whole claim collapse, since, Historically speaking, the majority of people had no such rights. Hence, the clause seems to claim that said people could not have been abused. Obviously, not the argument I would want to make...

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:12:14 2023 No.21587317 >>21587299 Oh well. We can try again in a few minutes...

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:13:10 2023 No.21587322

>>21587273
>He botched his suicide attempt and became a vegetable, he was force feed with a tube to his throat. He was asked by his mother if he still wanted to die, he answered with his eyes "yes" he was kept alive by against his will.
I definitely think that in cases like these aided suicide should be a human right. Very fucked up, the guy had even chosen to kill himself and is now forced to life in tubes.
>I think existence itself is violent act for the pleasure of living, we must eat we hurt others without intending to.
Yes, I agree. But I'm sure you know what I meant when I spoke of violence for the sake of pleasure. More on your point, I actually think it's kind of beautiful how life revolves.
>My point is something like this will happen eventually as a result of having children. I feel that I would basically be culpable.
I don't think that would make the parent culpable. Isn't that like trying to argue that the company or worker who crafted a hammer was culpable for a murder committed with that specific hammer? I think it's a bit silly. Certainly bad things can happen, and let's be real they do happen. But I think that life has so many wonderful things that I have personally been able to experience that I want to share these wonders with my offspring.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:14:10 2023 No.21587327

>>21585534
You're a deluded moron if you think you can guarantee anyone's safety in this world. Are you living in reality? Everyone is vulnerable. How can one roll the dice with putting someone else in danger, when there's no need for that someone to exist in the first place? It's insanely irresponsible behaviour. Which is fine if you were putting only yourself in danger, but we're talking about actions that affect another individual here.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:14:44 2023 No.21587330

>>21587287

Is there a single lifesucker point that does not:

1. Claim that life is at least unimpeachable, if not good, because nothing precedes it.
2. Claim that life is at least unimpeachable, if not good, because something better will follow it.

I myself am unaware of such points.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:16:01 2023 No.21587335
File: 925 KB, 1275x1763, 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I wish I could be a libertine and have slaves, and concubines and to kill all my enemies. I want to be evil.
I wish I didn't have compassion, it is a weakness which I have because I am weak. I want to be a genocidal, cannibal, rapist.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:18:09 2023 No.21587348

>>21587313
>abuse and being are synonymous.

Which doesn't work, because abuse is a word that requires a moral agent as the doer and someone as the agent being harmed. And since people who do not exist yet don't qualify as agents being harmed, the argument falls flat.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:19:26 2023 No.21587355

>>21587330
Is there a single time mentally ill OP does not:

1. Claim that life is evil, without providing any real evidence. The only evidence that counts is if OP is God, existing outside the universe looking inward, capable of making judgements about the true nature of being and non-being. If OP is a human within the universe, then he cannot claim that being or non-being is better than the other because there is no way for him to know the underlying nature of the universe.
2. Claim that life is evil, because he fixates on the pain and suffering, not all the care, joy and love that has emerged.

I myself think OP requires genuine help because he has been posting this thread for the last year and a half every month like he's on his fucking period.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:20:50 2023 No.21587361

>>21587348

Again, the agents being harmed are the existing, not the non-existing. Returning to my initial question about AIDS (>>21587103), do you, therefore, claim that congenital AIDS should be distinguished from acquired AIDS, pathologically speaking?

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:20:52 2023 No.21587363

>>21587330
>1. Claim that life is at least unimpeachable, if not good, because nothing precedes it.
Yet to see a single claim made to this effect. I think you may be conflating a number of points here.
>2. Claim that life is at least unimpeachable, if not good, because something better will follow it.
There are clearly a lot of people who are neither spiritual nor antinatalist so yes?
But again - do you have proof of your claim regarding being qua being as a form of abuse?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:21:54 2023 No.21587367 >>21587355 So, you are not aware either?

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:22:12 2023 No.21587368

>>21587361
>Again, the agents being harmed are the existing

AGAIN, that wasn't the fucking original argument. Stop moving the goalposts. What part of the argument that: "People don't consent about being born, so that can be considered a form of violence and abuse." I am responding to, don't you fucking understand?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:23:49 2023 No.21587376 >>21587363 See: >>21587330 >I myself am unaware of such points. Can YOU post some?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:24:20 2023 No.21587378 >>21587367 So you aren't a God to be passing judgement about how non-being is better than being either? Ugggghhhh. Yuck. Another snarky retort. You truly are a moron.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:25:35 2023 No.21587383 >>21587368 By your Logic, one cannot be said to be healthy prior to conception and birth, therefore, congenital AIDS is NOT pathological. Well done.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:26:22 2023 No.21587386 >>21577872 no, it's game over for that book. 15 years and people are still having children

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:26:22 2023 No.21587387 >>21587376 Most of the thread because point 1 is incoherent and point 2 is simply a religious argument. >please respond to the question below What proof do you have this being qua being is a form of abuse?

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:28:56 2023 No.21587400

>>21587376
>>21587387
>What proof do you have this being qua being is a form of abuse?

Both the created absence of the lack of sensory experience and the sensory experience are unwanted violations, for example. HOWEVER, note how no one has posted what I've requested, more to the point that lifesuckers tell on themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:29:35 2023 No.21587402 >>21587383 You're just making shit up now.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:32:54 2023 No.21587419

>>21587400
>Both the created absence of the lack of sensory experience and the sensory experience are unwanted violations, for example.
Unwanted by whom or what? Again - being precedes experience and thought. Weve been aware of this since Heidegger.
> HOWEVER, note how no one has posted what I've requested, more to the point that lifesuckers tell on themselves.
What is it that you are requesting?
I think you are confusing rhetorics and dialectic conclusions with truth. The two are not synonymous. Half the mental shite Plato and aristotle "proved" should be evidence enough.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:34:09 2023 No.21587423 >>21587402 Since, indeed, there is no one to be healthy prior to conception and birth, congenital AIDS is not pathological. Only those who acquire AIDS can be said to be diseased. LIFESUCKING: as Morally bankrupt as it is Logically so.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:34:41 2023 No.21587427 >>21587423 Take your meds.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:35:20 2023 No.21587430 >>21587419 >What is it that you are requesting? See: >>21587330

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:35:48 2023 No.21587433 Resharing my antinatalist story idea because I don't know how to write It's about a cult of antinatalist who have children and task them with destroying the world. https://pastebin.com/3jnUCGkK

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:37:07 2023 No.21587442 >>21587430 Relinking posts that have been responded to is not arguing in good faith. State in plain English what you are requesting.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:37:20 2023 No.21587443

>>21587430
See >>21587355
>>21587419
OP is a proven retard. He truly believes he knows the underlying nature of reality, like he is a God, and can judge whether non-being is better than being. He also fixates on suffering and conviniently ignores all the joy and care in the world.
Fuck him.
You want some friendly advice, stop responding to this ill moron.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:37:26 2023 No.21587444 File: 504 KB, 960x720, A98E509E-2E72-4367-959C-EB2070EF3BC8.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:39:49 2023 No.21587449

>>21587442

I am requesting one lifesucking argument that justifies life here and now, rather than justifying it on the ideological grounds that it is preceded by nothing and guaranteed to be followed by something better.

>>21587443

Lifesuckers now invoking God? My God...

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:40:38 2023 No.21587451

>>21587444
Oh yes I've asked OP about this months before in that month's benatar thread. I said that if he felt this strongly about antinatalism, he should become powerful and nuke everyone. All suffering would end then. But as usual he weaseled out of that and/or ignored it.
OP has been repeating the same talking points every fucking month. Every new month he believes he has refined his argument, but all he does is make snarky retorts and simmers in his own feces.
Stop responding to this fag. sage.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:40:59 2023 No.21587453 File: 243 KB, 680x709, aaf.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21587444

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:41:05 2023 No.21587454

>>21587430
You know what. Fuck it. You're chopping single lines out of posts and either obstinately refusing or simply intellectually incapable of engaging in a reasonable discussion about your views.
If you're trolling so be it - if not I hope you get the help you need to enjoy and engage with your short time in this world.
Peace out.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:42:05 2023 No.21587456 >>21587454 Did Heidegger predict this, too?

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:42:54 2023 No.21587459

>>21587449
I am requesting one mentally ill antinatlist argument that justifies death here and now, rather than justifying it on the ideological grounds that non-being is better, despite being incapable of knowing the true nature of reality, because one is not a God, and rather than making one snarky retort after another.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:43:04 2023 No.21587461 >>21587456 So you are a troll. Glad we can all ignore this thread in future.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:46:41 2023 No.21587479 >>21587459 Simple: since that which is cannot be justified, it is best for what is to be not.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:46:42 2023 No.21587480 Antinatalism runs into the same problems as all prescriptive ethics: Arbitrary value judgements based on arbitrary axioms. Anyone who takes normative ethics seriously is either intellectually dishonest or retarded.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:47:10 2023 No.21587482 >>21577878 >>21578025 the fact there is an afterlife actually supports ops claim

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:48:43 2023 No.21587485 >>21587444 Adam Lanza was this

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:49:57 2023 No.21587489 >>21587482 Depends on which afterlife out of an infinite number of possibilities you're referring to.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:50:08 2023 No.21587490 File: 33 KB, 680x763, 66f-1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>21587330 >still no such points posted As predicted.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:51:44 2023 No.21587498

>>21587479
False. You are deliberately ignoring my point and repeating your false argument over and over in this thread.
You do not know what non-being is. You are incapable of knowledge of non-being. Further, you cannot ascertain the true nature of reality (and non-reality). You know why? Because you are human. Not a God looking in.
So you cannot state that non-being is better than being, because you cannot compare an unknown to a know, simply because you don't like what you see.
But keep being a disingenuous faggot and keep simmering in your own excrement.
Simple logic escapes you, but you want to dictate reproductive freedoms of others.
Fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:53:03 2023 No.21587503 >>21587490 No faggot. Both those points have been refuted by me in multiple replies just now. But you want to live in intellectual arrogance and mental illness. So be it. Posting a chad picture and claiming you've won doesn't change anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:54:19 2023 No.21587506 If you consciously chose not to have children; you are a saint and will be awarded in the afterlife. Natalist will plummet into a inescapable pit filled with human bodies writhing, groaning, crying, farting and shidding

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:56:42 2023 No.21587518

>>21587498

Quite the contrary, it is you who shamelessly invoke a "non-being" with properties and relations and such, no doubt, per the broader lifesucker venality of always securing an ideological morsel to indefinitely suck on. Whereas I know exactly what non-being is: precisely that which is not. That I know or know not is irrelevant, since there is nothing to know about that which is not, since it is not.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:57:16 2023 No.21587520

>>21587506
You started by saying your logic is iron, but now you've resorted to mystical dogma: "Natalists will be rewarded".
Hmmmm you really love living in ignorance and intellectual arrogance.
This is mental illness and nothing more. Fantastical rationalizations for a simple personal choice and sentiment. Overblown and overvalued sentiments.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:57:46 2023 No.21587521 >>21587503 I did not ask for refutation. I asked for examples.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 16:59:04 2023 No.21587527

>>21587518
>Whereas I know exactly what non-being is: precisely that which is not
No you don't faggot. No one knows. Any claim to this is religios dogma. There is no proof for such a claim, this claim is untestable. Just spoken about in endless discussion. It isn't hte well reasoned logic you claim it to be.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:00:40 2023 No.21587531 >>21587527 Nothingness exists only in the minds of humans.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:01:11 2023 No.21587533 >>21587527 >That I know or know not is irrelevant AHEM!

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:01:38 2023 No.21587537

>>21587521
Yes you did. And when the refutation was provided you switched goalposts to examples. And then you switched goalposts to mystical dogma. Then you stated that you have total knowledge of non-being, which is by definition impossible, yet another mystical dogma. Then you went back to snarky retort. Then you spoke about the pittance of the human condition and oh how you wish there was no suffering. Then you restated you argument as iron logic. Then you repeated the whole thing again. Fuck off retard. Stop taking yourself and your overblown sentiments so seriously. Fuck off.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:02:46 2023 No.21587541 >>21587531 Another mystical claim that cannot be tested, simply argued about endlessly. >>21587533 Another snarky retort. You fuckheads don't have another MO. You repeat the same things over and over again.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:02:51 2023 No.21587542 >>21587537 >Yes you did Where was this?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:04:25 2023 No.21587547 >>21587541 Not really "snarky", since I said that me knowing or knowing not is irrelevant, and you then claimed that me not knowing refutes my point. Quite the difference, no?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:06:05 2023 No.21587549 The only based view is strict natalism. Only certain types of people should be parents. And certainly that leaves the majority of mankind out the picture.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:07:14 2023 No.21587552 >>21587541 Show evidence of nothingness then faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:08:04 2023 No.21587556 >>21587542 >>21587547 Hmm hmmm following this exact MO described in >>21587537 See you when you get your period next month and shit up this board.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:12:07 2023 No.21587575 >>21587556 Keep sucking that life. Say, the irony that most tragic media and, in fact, the very idea of tragedy, is engendered by lifesuckers crying because they have to swallow, is it totally lost on you?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:12:14 2023 No.21587577 >>21587549 This. + genetic engineering

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:16:30 2023 No.21587589

>>21587549
We’re in a period of selection relaxation now, once we become dysgenic enough that industrial civilisation starts to disintegrate we will go back to the preindustrial situation of intelligence and fertility being positively related.

Unavoidable civilisational collapse is a white pill in disguise.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:23:32 2023 No.21587613 >>21587589 There won't be a civilizational collapse lmao.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:27:05 2023 No.21587631 >>21577878 Sure. And then what? Live forever indulging in debauchery? What's the point of it?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:28:48 2023 No.21587641 >>21587631 You are reincarnated, your senses are renewed, everything becomes fresh. How you are feeling now is transient you won't be bored forever

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:30:01 2023 No.21587646 >>21587613 This is what every civilisation thinks about itself. They all collapse anyway. And ours is more obviously fragile and unsustainable than all the previous ones.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:41:58 2023 No.21587693 >>21577872 Why did he write the book and not commit suicide immediately when he came to that conclusion?

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:44:12 2023 No.21587704 >>21587693 Living life without having children is basically a prolonged suicide. Besides you don't have to hate life to be an antinatalist, but hating life may strengthen your conviction

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:45:45 2023 No.21587708 [DELETED]

>>21587631
Son, nothing is permanent. Not even the earth. Even the earth will die in less than a billion years. And you talk as if we haven't already seen over a dozen major civilizations collapse during the past 5000 years. You're are not special. This vacation as well will end.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:50:18 2023 No.21587727

>>21587613
Son, nothing is permanent. Not even the earth. Even the earth will die in less than a billion years. And you talk as if we haven't already seen over a dozen major civilizations collapse during the past 5000 years. What makes you think you are special. This vacation as well will end.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:51:49 2023 No.21587738 >>21587727 If something can exist once why can't it exist again? Maybe the universe is cyclical and remakes itself. Or that time isn't real and everything happens all at once forever. Death isn't real.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:52:49 2023 No.21587740 >>21587738 https://youtu.be/lZzRT1Y5HoM video on cosmic antinatalism

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:54:34 2023 No.21587748 >>21586927 RIP

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:55:41 2023 No.21587754 >>21587225 based

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 17:56:42 2023 No.21587761 >>21586927 What did he think he would accomplish by killing himself? Didn't he think he was immortal or something? Anyways I'm proud of him for killing himself

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 18:13:09 2023 No.21587824 Refute this https://www.everdeeperhonesty.com/

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 18:38:41 2023 No.21587919

>>21587761
Word is he killed himself to prove quantum immortality. Which I mean we can't ever verify anyways, maybe he really did jump to a new universe in which he didn't die. But for the rest of us we'd still be here in the universe he "jumped" and left behind

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 18:39:42 2023 No.21587927 >>21587824 >https://www.everdeeperhonesty.com/ nice virus

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 19:24:51 2023 No.21588098 File: 38 KB, 333x500, 51uaER4i2ZL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Natalist bros what books are how we reading? Positive Parenting is KINO and the Ultimate Parenting Guide BTFO's Benatars asymmetry argument

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 19:27:47 2023 No.21588112 File: 35 KB, 386x500, 51rcrz-nj1L._AC_SY580_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] KINO! Raising Our Daughters is irrefutable. Kathy Masarie's book is the end game of all philosophy

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 19:29:28 2023 No.21588125 >>21587824 Seems interesting, I ctrl + f :suicide and read a little bit. Very long though.

Anonymous Sun Jan 29 20:05:55 2023 No.21588269

>>21588112
WOW that really is kind of irrefutable wtf... I can't believe I didn't think of raising children properly and showing the love and care! This is actually quite shocking to me, I can't think of a single refutation to this. It's over antinatalistchuds... we lost

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 20:23:11 2023 No.21588326 I kind of what to have children just to spite my philosophical beliefs A fuck you to myself

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 21:06:07 2023 No.21588525 >>21586432 >... >... >UNREFUTED Kek, every time.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 22:38:41 2023 No.21588982 All men suffer, not all men pity themselves.

>>	Anonymous Sun Jan 29 23:00:23 2023 No.21589061 >>21588125 Yeah. Anonymous sperg author. Also a lot of repetition which author calls "Natural-repetition". Probably an indoctrination technique. programming, deprogramming, reprogramming pg 666

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature