/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.23096132]

How does one refute antinatalism without involving God in the equation?

[Anonymous No.23096139]

>>23096132
Idk. Aristotle said something about having children being something about taking part in the divine or some shit.

[Anonymous No.23096152]

>>23096132
By not involving god in the equation

[Anonymous No.23096191]

Quit being a whiny bitch.

[Anonymous No.23096192]

You’re trying to tackle a subjective being pre-objective verification so you a priori lose you dumb nigger

[Anonymous No.23096220]

>>23096132
How does one accept antinatalism without involving God in the equation?

[Anonymous No.23096234]

>>23096220
This is what I want to know.

[Anonymous No.23096393]

any 'should' implies a god

[Anonymous No.23096499]

Nobody actually believes in antinatalism. The proof is that nobody has gone on a killing spree to end other people's suffering. There is no death cult trying to nuke the planet like there would be if this was a serious ideology.

[Anonymous No.23096556]

antinatalism only saves the children of high IQ population from the misery of life because they are the only ones who can read and understand schopenhauer. even then there is no guarantee those who are able to understand and reason will follow his advice. a big portion would prefer to simply ignore it and chase their selfish interest.

antinatalism already fails there as it does not work on selfish population, they will create and expose new people to misery of life. but the real impact is better understood when you consider the insatiable desire to procreate of the subhumans of the world. billions that cannot read or reason cannot be pursued out of shitting out children. an african will give birth to eight children before you can explain the gist of antinatalism to her.

so pursuing people into not giving birth is not a real solution, there will always be some egoist who will give live to someone. a more effective solution to reduce pain for everyone is to make life more bearable for future children. and at that the scientists and inventors did the most good.

[Anonymous No.23096563]

>>23096499
Anti-natalists are people that refuse to procreate, they have nothing against people that are procreating.
>>23096132
It is a failed ideology. Even if you involve god, the ideology refutes itself. We cannot defeat time and being, our consciousness or as Schopenhauer would call it - "Will" is limited and incapable of rationalizing what time actually is.

Even if all life is destroyed, evolution and time will automatically create new life out of atoms somewhere in the vast and infinite spacetime, just as it had done previously.

[Anonymous No.23096567]

Time is final question to solve, everything else is intellectual masturbation.

[Anonymous No.23096642]

>>23096132
You just laugh at their gay opinion.

[Anonymous No.23096655]

>>23096132
"Okay wise guy, kill yourself then. Oh what's that, you don't want to? I guess life isn't so bad then."

[Anonymous No.23096672]

Schopenhauer accepted the idea of reincarnation. If humans stop reproducing, then the unborn souls will just reincarnate somewhere else. You have to actually follow Hinduism/Buddhism as a monk to end the cycle. Also if you choose to have kids, you can take the opportunity to give them a better upbringing than if they had been reincarnated as some dirtbag's kids. Neither the Buddha nor any of the Hindu philosophers endorsed antinatalism.

[Anonymous No.23096691]

>>23096132
>without involving God
No thanks, I'll pass.

[Anonymous No.23096789]

>>23096132
The good things about life more than compensate the small amounts of suffering most people are likely to go through

Non-existent people did not consent into remaining non-existent and they should be given the choice, but to have a choice they must becoming existent first

[Anonymous No.23096875]

>>23096139
Aristotle was the first philosopher to agree with the antinatalist lack of consent argument though

[Anonymous No.23096885]

>>23096132
by saying you enjoy life, any antinatalists you can just btfo by saying
>good, you shouldnt reproduce, the world will be a better place if you dont
>however stop projecting because i love life and more me will make the world a better place

[Anonymous No.23096895]

>>23096132
Antinatalism involves a moral standard both in how it judges the value of life and its conditions and in its specifically reproductive stance. So I guess any simple moral skepticism is enough to obstruct an antinatalist argument.

>>23096139
Don't you mean Plato?

>>23096875
Really? Where? I'm genuinely curious.

[Anonymous No.23096903]

>>23096132
Anti natalism is the father of LGBTQ

[Anonymous No.23096920]

>>23096132
You cannot refute antinatalism because it is right, the problem is that on a practical level it will inevitably triumph. Although at the moment (on a practical level) it is just an antics

[Anonymous No.23096926]

>>23096885
You don't love life, you just love to masturbate, loser

[Anonymous No.23097002]

Of all the things you could choose to put your faith on, you put it on the most disempowering thing in the world. Of all the things you could worship, you worship "facts".
I say "facts" and not facts because for you life is just a brutally unfair never-ending carnage. That's all you see in the world. That's all you feel. You are incapable of literally appreciating anything at all beyond its horrors and imperfections. For you there is nothing to do in life, no reason to hang around.
Beauty is real. Love is real. Pleasure is real. Peace is real. Life is such a complex phenomenon that our minds cannot take it all in.
And yet you people feel like you have the absolute truth, like your pathetic mental state is the peak of mental performance. All you do is complain. You have absolutely nothing of value to say at all because your outlook on the phenomenon of life is "just stop".

[Anonymous No.23097007]

>>23096132
consciousness is a learned behavior, a toddler by itself is nothing more but an animal just like our ancestors, the act of conceiving is neutral
he gets to learn proper language and civilized behavior from generational knowledge, only then he can formulate the thought of "agoo I didn't sign up for this" which is kind of an original sin, but the alternative life as an animal isn't feasible now. we can't enforce global antinatalism because a human has the primitive side which needs to reproduce, and even if we eradicate humanity there's a possibility that another sentient race emerges facing the same problem
we owe building better future to our predecessors (for teaching us the art of consciousness) and successors (to remove negative consequences of being sentient in physical world, it's also for the benefit of ourselves)

[Anonymous No.23097052]

>>23097002
"Good" things are just an effect of the bad things. As simple as. The world is bad and will inevitably die by the way

[Anonymous No.23097065]

>>23096220
>>23096234
Self hate, hatred for oneself.
The thought of having an offspring who shared the genes of a man that you hate, is insufferable, except in this case, that man is none other than (You)

[Anonymous No.23097084]

without God morality is relative and meaningless so theres no real point to antinatalism at all. defeating antinatalism becomes as easy as simply saying "causing suffering is not unethical" or "not having kids in unethical" or literally anything of that sort that pops into your mind, and it is all literally impossible to refute

[Anonymous No.23097144]

>>23097052
>The world is bad and will inevitably die by the way
This is the tunnel vision shit I am talking about. Everyone has it of course, but your tunnel vision only lets you see shit. You're a nutcase, has nothing to do with the truth or intelligence, you're just mental.
Death is the only thing real to you? If you're just a maggot infested piece of shit in your own worldview, why would anyone listen to you?

[Anonymous No.23097191]

>>23096563
>Anti-natalists are people that refuse to procreate, they have nothing against people that are procreating.
This isn't true. Antinatalism is defined by a moral objection against reproduction.
>Even if all life is destroyed, evolution and time will automatically create new life out of atoms somewhere in the vast and infinite spacetime
How do you know that? Can you predict the future?

[Anonymous No.23097206]

>>23097191
We all came from DNA, which arised from proteins formed of a clever combination of molecules under a special condition in a spacetime. What is stopping it from having anywhere else in the spacetime continuum?

[Anonymous No.23097209]

>>23097206
>What is stopping it from having anywhere else in the spacetime continuum?
What is stopping it from not having anywhere else in the spacetime continuum?

[Anonymous No.23097215]

>>23097206
>What is stopping it from having anywhere else in the spacetime continuum?
Sorry Correction and modification in the statement
>What is stopping DNA (or something like DNA) to be created again in the similar circumstances somewhere in the universe?

[Anonymous No.23097220]

>>23097144
Everybody is just organic garbage, even if my vision is incorrect/superficial. On a practical level, I care that no one suffers or, worse yet, agonizes senselessly and that the only way is for everyone to die. Because suffering and dying is part of living.

[Anonymous No.23097254]

Entropy, Energy, Gravity, Force, Motion and Dimensions are only possible based on the flow of time as we perceive it. But couldn't there exist some things that we cannot perceive with our limited consciousness?

[Anonymous No.23097297]

>>23096132
Easy, be a woman. An antinatalist man is as useless as tits on a boar hog. For every man committed to not procreating, a dozen sluts are using their pussy like a MLM. There are more women fuckin in heaven and earth than is dreamt of in your philosophy, anon.

[Anonymous No.23097305]

>>23096655
t. reddit

[Anonymous No.23097321]

>>23096672
/thread I honestly dont get how Schopenhauer completely failed to realize this, although I will say that I dont think samsara can be ended, maybe theres something that happens to the individual emanation but overall I doubt it can be ended universally.

[Anonymous No.23097342]

>>23096132
By being happy, having sex, and having children. Enjoying life is the refutation. Fuck the sad-sacks of "manhood." Pussies.

[Anonymous No.23097350]

>>23097342
You speak like a woman. I care about doing the right thing, no le... enjoying life

[Anonymous No.23097354]

>>23096132
Having children is the most cost-efficient way (in terms of effort) to have a good life thru most of your life.

[Anonymous No.23097360]

>>23097342
>By being happy, having sex, and having children
What if your children cannot do that? How do you own the chuds then?

[Anonymous No.23097369]

>>23097354
>having more expenses and responsibilities for no tangible benefit is the most efficient way to have a good life
damn your life must be sad

[Anonymous No.23097372]

>>23096672
Buddha literally abandoned his kid, dumbass

[Anonymous No.23097377]

universe 25

[Anonymous No.23097381]

>>23096563
That's not true
I'm an anti-natalism-ist and anti-natalism absolutely requires the judgement of people who have children
The point is that birth is bad
That's why the anti-natalist position is so hard to defend

[Anonymous No.23097427]

>>23097377
It's like we're at the beginning of the last stage lmaooo

[Anonymous No.23097451]

>>23096132
You are an animal. You exist to procreate. To refuse is to go against your own nature. You don’t need God or philosophers to understand this.
Have kids, faggots.

[Anonymous No.23097461]

>>23097372
And? He never taught that reproduction is immoral. Leaving the palace to his kid doesn't affect that.

[Anonymous No.23097517]

>>23097451
if I'm an animal why can't I go ape shit

[Anonymous No.23097532]

>>23096132
Evolution

[Anonymous No.23097541]

>>23097451
naturalistic fallacy

[Anonymous No.23097546]

>>23097532
Evolutionary theory doesn't make any normative claims, therefore it cannot disprove antinatalism.

[Anonymous No.23097560]

>>23097541
Labeling something a this-or-that doesn’t magically make it untrue. You are an animal. You exist to procreate. It’s your main function beyond eating, shitting, and sleeping. This is not something you can deny.

[Anonymous No.23097567]

>>23097560
>You exist to procreate
source?

[Anonymous No.23097568]

>>23097567
Your fucking body. Are you retarded? Stop thinking in the abstract, you out of touch moron.

[Anonymous No.23097573]

>>23097546
As far as I know antinatalism is just givining up because life sucks. I guess some people like to think humans are naturaly stupid and self serving ect. Evolution would be a good solution. Humans would be more "mature" and "understanding". They would be more eccepting of eachother and intelligent, therefore able to solve many world problems.

[Anonymous No.23097576]

>>23097568
>Your fucking body
my body tells me that I should reproduce? how?
>Stop thinking in the abstract
more like "stop questioning my bullshit claims"

[Anonymous No.23097580]

>>23097576
Really? Your body doesn’t tell you to procreate? How come you jerk off then?

[Anonymous No.23097601]

>>23097580
funny how you assume that sexual desire implies a reproductive duty yet in the same sentence you mentioned a way to satisfy it that's unrelated to reproduction

[Anonymous No.23097612]

>>23097601
Alright, you’re trolling. I fell for it.

[Anonymous No.23097616]

>>23097612
cope

[Anonymous No.23097624]

>>23097568
There are humans who have lived their entire lives without a spouse. They have also found spiritual significance in living that way.
You also can't deny that there are many ways that humans behave that differ from animals.

[Anonymous No.23097626]

>>23097616
Jerking off is a substitute for not having a mate. You really think your sexual desires are intended to be satisfied by yourself? No, you are supposed to mate. That’s why you think of mates when you jerk off. How are you real?

[Anonymous No.23097634]

>>23097624
Jesus Christ. I now understand the zoomer meme “what no pussy does to a mf”. Yall have convinced yourself you’re somehow above being a mammal. Holy shit. YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO REPRODUCE.

[Anonymous No.23097653]

>>23096132
There's a practically infinite number of worlds with people on them, people are just going to reincarnate there rather than here. Also the short term consequences of no young people keeping the economy running would suck ass
>>23097634
For there to be a teleology there must be an external force assigning it, in this case it would have to be god (which is fine but it contradicts the whole central premise of this discussion.)

[Anonymous No.23097657]

>>23097427
>like
:(

[Anonymous No.23097665]

>>23096132
Why would you want to? There are way too many fucking people, creating children simultaneously and inevitably creates human suffering and death, it's immoral to create a human that must eventually die just so you have a pet/slave that will take care of you when you're old, there's literally no good reason.

The only reasons people want more fucking children are:

1. Ignorant selfishness
2. Capitalism's need for endless, unsustainable growth (more and more consumers forever n ever)
3. Pastors who make money as parasites need their sheep to make more sheep they can bleed because how else are they going to make a living without having to work more than half a day a week?

>Well what's the point of life then if the point of life isn't to make more life whose point of life is to make more life whose point of life is to make more life whose...

Yes, exactly. What's the point? Bullseye.

[Anonymous No.23097666]

>>23097653
>must be an external force assigning it
No, there doesn’t.

[Anonymous No.23097676]

>>23097665
#1 is subjective. You only think it’s selfish because you hate life. For people who enjoy life, it’s a gift to be shared. I’m sorry your life sucks and you ended up a hopeless doomer.

[Anonymous No.23097680]

>>23097666
Then where does the telos originate from?

[Anonymous No.23097688]

>>23097680
From itself. Your biologics drive you to reproduce, so that’s the goal. It’s inherent. Stop thinking abstractly.

[Anonymous No.23097698]

>>23097634
I don't think they are intended to be satisfide on your own. I'm not really speaking much for the other anon. I'm just pointing out that humans do have a history of behaving differently to animals, even when it comes to sexual desires.
You encourage it, but some people feel strongly in the opposition, and this feeling was stronger and more widespread in older times, influenced by religion, culture ect.
You call me a zoomer when you are more a product of recent times then anything.
By the way I know I'm a mammal, but yeah I know I'm above a monkey, I guess you aren't. :)

[Anonymous No.23097699]

>>23097688
Your cells also age and eventually fail, that is simple biology. Is death our purpose too?

[Anonymous No.23097722]

>>23097699
Yes.

>>23097698
Having a more advanced brain doesn’t magically absolve you from the same primal needs of the monkey. Humans are not special. We just have the ability to reason, which people somehow use to dilute themselves into thinking it’s viable to not reproduce.

[Anonymous No.23097736]

>>23097722
If every material thing is impermanent, then according to you its purpose is to be killed or destroyed. Why shouldn't I just kill you, or myseif if that's our purpose. Why should we listen to you, if you view death and destruction as positive?

[Anonymous No.23097744]

>>23097736
Not necessarily positive, it’s just the intended behavior. And I’m only talking about natural death, like you said cell decay. Yes. Everything born dies. And that’s part of its purpose. Shocking, I know.

[Anonymous No.23097752]

>>23096132
>How do I refute this claim surrounding moral duties or values without any basis for affirming or denying any moral values or duties

>>23096220

[Anonymous No.23097772]

>>23097744
We are just as much a part of nature as any natural process, what makes one thing more "natural" than another?

[Anonymous No.23097799]

>>23097772
Natural in the sense that cell decay happens to everyone and it’s intrinsic to being human. If someone gets hit by a bus, that’s not something that happens to everyone and it’s not intrinsic.

[Anonymous No.23097833]

>>23097722
>Humans are not special. We just have the ability to reason
Dude whether or not I WANT to "reason" with you is the important part. I stand by my beliefs. I don't need your philosophies. I have my own. I don't just listen to ancient words.
The funny thing is that if you weren't a bit above monkeys yourself then you wouldn't be here to argue this. So how about I give you another solution. If you think yourself so low then run off into the wild. Neither you or your words would be needed in human society anyways.

[Anonymous No.23097836]

>>23097799
Yet many people don't reproduce, which clearly means it's not intrinsic to humans, is reproduction not natural now?

Furthermore, by your definition, if something is natural, then contradicting it is impossible. Saying that antinatalism "contradicts our nature" is clearly impossible.

[Anonymous No.23097847]

>>23097836
I miswrote that last sentence, you can say anything. Contradicting our nature however would be impossible

[Anonymous No.23097851]

>>23097833
Someday you’ll experience a hardship that knocks you down from this lofty viewpoint. You’re an animal, not anything higher than that. The sooner you embrace this, the happier you’ll be. Because you’ll be living in truth.

[Anonymous No.23097862]

>>23097836
Yes, they’re denying their purpose. And the same would be true if we had a magical pill that made you immortal.

On the second point, we’re getting pedantic about the word “natural” here, I don’t feel like re-explaining. Unnatural things can exist.

[Anonymous No.23097869]

>>23097851
I'm not sure how living true everyday life validates your argument on sexuality, but you don't know anything about me. :/
I actually held back on just accusing you of projecting your own masturbation habits since you were so focused on it. xD

[Anonymous No.23097881]

>>23097369
>>having more expenses and responsibilities for no tangible benefit is the most efficient way to have a good life
What are you going to do with the free time and extra from being childless? Regardless of the answer, will these things still be satisfatory to you when you're 70?

[Anonymous No.23097892]

>>23097869
>hurr durr pRoJecT mUcH? xD
Yeah, yeah. No need to actually think through the argument or use your brain at all. Go back to R*ddit, woman.

[Anonymous No.23097899]

>>23097626
>you are supposed to mate
source?
>That’s why you think of mates when you jerk off
exactly, people usually think about sex when they jerk off. they don't think about babies, that would be weird.

[Anonymous No.23097906]

>>23097899
And where do babies come from? Fucking retarded board, I swear.

[Anonymous No.23097915]

>>23097634
>Yall have convinced yourself you’re somehow above being a mammal
yeah, I think I'm above animals. you don't? too bad for you.

[Anonymous No.23097920]

>>23097915
Fundamentally? No. Of course not. Dude you can speak language and do math, whoopdi shit. We’re still animals. Forgetting that leads to a lot of unnecessary problems.

[Anonymous No.23097926]

>>23097920
>Forgetting that leads to a lot of unnecessary problems
OH NO the problem that some people don't want to have children!!! god help us

[Anonymous No.23097928]

>>23097906
>And where do babies come from?
sexual activity does not necessarily result in reproduction

[Anonymous No.23097931]

>>23097881
so the idea of an old person just enjoying their time makes you question your decision of having children? damn that's awful

[Anonymous No.23097935]

>>23097926
Yeah, it’s a problem. You’ll see when you’re 80 and rely on the generations after you to sustain society and provide you with abundance. You need other people to survive. Other people requires reproduction.

[Anonymous No.23097937]

>>23097928
Why does sexual activity exist as a possible activity in the first place, genius?

[Anonymous No.23097956]

>>23097935
the concept of private pensions make the idea of having children as a retirement plan obsolete. being able to speak language, do math and that kind of thing is useful for humans, you see

[Anonymous No.23097958]

>>23097937
your parents didn't have that conversation with you? I'm not your dad

[Anonymous No.23097960]

>>23097956
Brain dead. There’s no point in continuing when you’re this stupid.

[Anonymous No.23097966]

>>23097960
butthurt because you just lost the argument

[Anonymous No.23097972]

>>23097892
I've already had time to think about antinatalism.
Just pointing out your weird obssesion. It would usually mean a peson is projecting insecurities.

[Anonymous No.23098007]

>>23096132
>How does one refute antinatalism without involving God in the equation?

[Anonymous No.23098008]

>>23097576
>my body tells me that I should reproduce? how?
NTA, but literally anytime you feel horny, aroused, sexual attraction of any kind. That is your body telling you to mate. Sexual desire is instilled in humans for that very reason. By acting like there isn't some inherent biological drive to reproduce in normative human beings you're either being complete disingenuous or intentionally obtuse.

[Anonymous No.23098031]

>>23098008
>be horny
>jerk off
>not horny anymore
my point is that my body doesn't "care" if I reproduce, it just wants me to relieve sexual tension. therefore I don't have physiological reasons to want to reproduce, and that's generally true for men.

[Anonymous No.23098034]

>>23096132
humans existing=good

[Anonymous No.23098114]

>>23096132
Here are some antinatalist arguments and my rebuttals.

>Life entails inevitable suffering.
Then life also entails inevitable happiness.
No? Then it would be more accurate to say that life provides opportunities for suffering and pleasure.

>Death is inevitable.
Yes, but just because death is inevitable doesn't mean that life isn't worth living.
A person has an opportunity to seek the meaning of their own life and live it to what they consider the fullest.

>Humans are born without their consent—no one chooses whether or not they come into existence.
It's not like they have a means to consent and a lack of consent isn't always wrong (children don't always consent to what their parents do, but it is hopefully for their own good; like being told to do their homework, apologize to another kid, etc).
Anyways, once alive, they can always have the option to end it. (I don't condone suicide, but I believe people have the right to bodily autonomy, even to that extent)

>Although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person's suffering.
It's not always a gamble though. Before you have a kid, you are likely aware of your own financial security, social status and relationships.
So, if you are in a position where you kid is likely going to suffer, then it is irresponsible and perhaps wrong of you to do so (one has to consider the circumstances).
But if you can ensure your kid can have a good chance at happiness, then there isn't an issue.

>There is an axiological asymmetry between good and bad things in life, such that coming into existence is always a harm.
I don't agree that pain is always bad. A certain amount of discomfort, whether it be physical (like exercise) or emotional (like shame from doing something bad), is necessary to become a well-developed person.
So, the difference between the presence of pain and the absence of pain isn't as black and white as conjectured.
Instead, we should focus more on the presence of pleasure vs the absence of pleasure.
If you view pleasure and pain as two sides of the same coin, then you could say that this entire argument is irrelevant.
However, if you view pleasure as an experience that isn't merely the opposite of pain, then this argument is against antinatalism.

[Anonymous No.23098410]

>>23098114
>(I don't condone suicide, but I believe people have the right to bodily autonomy, even to that extent)

For me, this is the highest degree of freedom. Having the choice to ot yourself out, to face the annihilation of the self, in *Fanaa.*
If such an act requires one to develop a process of philosophical pessimism, then by virtue, that process is the highest good.

[Anonymous No.23098416]

>>23098031
I think the point to be made here is that sexual tension is a hijacking mechanism your body uses in order to promote the reproduction of itself.
By masturbating, you temporarily put that mechanism to rest.
But it still continues to persist, and in modernity, it is extremely easy to sate your desires with pornography as opposed to fucking pussy.

[Anonymous No.23098467]

>>23096132
>How does one refute antinatalism without involving God in the equation?
"My hypothetical children never consented to not being born. Not having children immorally imposes forced nonexistence upon them"

[Anonymous No.23098474]

>>23097956
>the concept of private pensions make the idea of having children as a retirement plan obsolete
Pension means money - money that you can exchange for goods and services. Goods and services performed by whom exactly, niggerfaggot?

[Anonymous No.23098481]

>>23098474
children of dumb people, obviously. never said otherwise.

[Anonymous No.23098504]

>>23098114
>Then life also entails inevitable happiness.
No? Then it would be more accurate to say that life provides opportunities for suffering and pleasure.
Happiness/pleasure is worse than suffeting/agony
>Yes, but just because death is inevitable doesn't mean that life isn't worth living.
A person has an opportunity to seek the meaning of their own life and live it to what they consider the fullest.
Everything they do/you do will be in vain, bitch.
>It's not like they have a means to consent and a lack of consent isn't always wrong (children don't always consent to what their parents do, but it is hopefully for their own good; like being told to do their homework, apologize to another kid, etc).
Anyways, once alive, they can always have the option to end it. (I don't condone suicide, but I believe people have the right to bodily autonomy, even to that extent)
Kek wtf
>Although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person's suffering.
This is not an antinatalist argument, antinatalism claims at birth suffering is inherent not a gamble, you tranny
>I don't agree that pain is always bad.
Yeah, but agony or extreme pain always is. Kys retard

[Anonymous No.23098559]

>>23098504
>Happiness/pleasure is worse than suffeting/agony
Woah, so edgy. I almost felt that on my wrists.

>Everything they do/you do will be in vain, bitch.
Why? Because people die? If you live your life to the fullest, then was it really in vain? If you are happy with your life, then how can one say it was in vain?
Even if it doesn't matter to you since you are dead, what about those who are alive? If they appreciated your life, then was it in vain?
Or is it because they too will die, and in 5 billion years the sun will die out and all life will go extinct?
I really hope that isn't your position, because that's the kind of stuff a child concerns themselves with.
As long as you lived your life the best you could and you were happy with the result, then it wasn't in vain.

>This is not an antinatalist argument, antinatalism claims at birth suffering is inherent not a gamble, you tranny
That argument was literally copied from Wikipedia, lol. Even if that isn't your personal position, it's still an antinatalist position.

>antinatalism claims at birth suffering is inherent not a gamble
Sure, but the amount of suffering can be a bit of a gamble, right? The conditions you are born in can easily determine a lot of what you experience.
I can agree that suffering will be inherent. It would be practically impossible to guarantee that a person doesn't experience pain.
Still, it isn't a complete gamble, since a parent can make a choice given the conditions they are bringing a child into.

>Yeah, but agony or extreme pain always is. Kys retard
It would be wrong to have a child if you knew that they were likely going to experience a lot of pain.
But if you know that you can take care of a child and ensure that they have a good childhood, then there is no problem?

And once that person is an adult, they really can't blame their parents if things start to go down hill (if they had a decent childhood),
since at that point it would be a pathetic attempt to avoid responsibility for their own actions.

And I think that's my biggest issue with antinatalism. It just puts the blame for someone's problems onto the parents.
If you weren't born, you wouldn't have the opportunity to live a good life or spout such crap.
If the suffering is so bad and hopeless, just end it instead of bitching about it. Or focus on doing something to change it.

[Anonymous No.23098579]

>>23097451
>You exist to procreate.
Considering that most men failed to procreate, this further fuels the anti-natalist sentiment.

[Anonymous No.23098619]

>>23098416
>By masturbating, you temporarily put that mechanism to rest
Same can be said about breeding though. Having children does not magically kill one's sex drive. Libido is a constant, so monogamy might as well be considered a denial of reproductive impulses.

[Anonymous No.23098633]

>>23096132
One does not, but that's OK bc God is real

[Anonymous No.23098655]

>>23097451
But we live in an unnatural world and do unnatural things all day.
You don't have choice. You will procreate whether you like it or not.

[Anonymous No.23098784]

>>23097084
The actual correct answer unsurprisingly gets no (you)

[Anonymous No.23098821]

>>23098559
>Woah, so edgy. I almost felt that on my wrists.
Is literally the opposite to edgy
>5 billion years the sun will die out and all life will go extinct?
Do you really think we'll survive until that or half of that lmao? The planet has less than 1000 years of life left.
>That argument was literally copied from Wikipedia, lol. Even if that isn't your personal position, it's still an antinatalist position.
It's a meme and a nonsense argument. Benatar would be embarrassed.
>Sure, but the amount of suffering can be a bit of a gamble, right?
Suffering is suffering. In any case, humans cause more suffering to other species than they receive it themselves.
>It would be wrong to have a child if you knew that they were likely going to experience a lot of pain
Always is wrong having a children.

[Anonymous No.23098905]

>>23096132
By being a moral nihilist
>>having kids is immoral becau-
>tf is immoral?

[Anonymous No.23098987]

>>23096132
Why? Let antinatalists and their doomer philosophy be. People who aren't bitches will continue on with their life regardless of life's struggles. This dude for example, Chamka Math on YouTube, was severely burned by an acid attack. Rather than give up on life, he became a respected mathematician and now has a popular math-based YouTube channel. Antinatalism, nihilism, Doomerism, etc. is all just 1st-world modern piss baby shit. People with genuine tragic problems generally don't have the time to mire in them. A man at risk of starving doesn't have the leisure of ruminating on how miserable his life is because he's too busy trying to find something to eat.

[Anonymous No.23099012]

>>23098987

[Anonymous No.23099022]

>>23098987

[Anonymous No.23099035]

>>23098821
The asymmetry argument fails, because it assumes that there is such a thing as a state of affairs in which a person didnt come into existence, however this relies on closed individualism to be true, which is most certainly not the case, and empty individualism only supports the asymmetry if you take it to be effectively closed individualism but for every moment, which again doesnt make sense, so the only 2 options left are either buddhistic empty individualism or open individualism, both of which entirely dispute the existence of such a thing as a state of affairs in which someone doesnt exist, or ceased to exist, thus the asymmetry argument completely falls apart, as it is no longer capable of making a claim that non-existence is equivalent to the best possible life morally, because there is no such thing as non-existence.

[Anonymous No.23099074]

>>23099035
I don't care, antinatalism it's the only morality and philosophy that places eternity above all/as it's principle. Ergo it's the only based philosophy

[Anonymous No.23099120]

>>23099074
If by based you mean self-extinguishing and evolutionarily doomed to failure.

There have already been anti-natalist cults like the shakers. Unsurprisingly they have almost all died out. Meanwhile the pro-natalist cults grew rapidly into the dominant religions we see today.

The simple fact is that I am glad to have existed and think the suffering in life was worthwhile. I'm also not depressed, so I don't need to subscribe to a philosophy to justify my mental illness.

[Anonymous No.23099138]

>>23097350
And yet, you're the one crying, you anti-natalist faggot. Get out of here with your trite ad hominems, sad sack.

[Anonymous No.23099143]

>>23097360
An asinine question. All humans are capable of this. Whether or not they do it is on them.

[Anonymous No.23099154]

>>23099074
But thats the thing, the ultimate goal of antinatalism, which is the extinction of sentient life/consciousness is impossible, and if you claim to care about all sufferers in general, then why dont you care about the life that come to exist afterwards, which is in every sense of the word, just the exact same life that has always existed and will continue to exist, choosing not to procreate or commit suicide does nothing, other than remove a potentially good life (or bad life, so its not like its not correct under any circumstances, but the point is that it isnt a universal principle), and leave the universe an overall worse place than it could of been.

You might say but that future life would of suffered anyways, but the thing is that isnt future life, thats the same life, reincarnation doesnt care about time the way we do, instead your next life could potentially be in the 10th century, or 1 million years ago, or a 1 million years in the future, the point is all of life or at least all of sentient experience is really just 1 single consciousness, that will forever exist, so the best and most moral thing one can do is create as much happiness as possible, eliminating all life is if anything one of the worst things you can do, because you eliminate far more potential good than bad in that case.

[Anonymous No.23099173]

>>23099035
>The asymmetry argument fails, because it assumes that there is such a thing as a state of affairs in which a person didnt come into existence
I mean I don't understand this shit. There is a possibility for a child to exist in cause and effect. You do not provoke the cause, the child is not born. You provoke the cause, the child is born. Obviously you didn't prevent anything, but you didn't cause anything either.

[Anonymous No.23099189]

>>23099120
I mean, no matter what you do, everyone will inevitably die.
Literally if you are not depressed, you are mentally ill. Read a book for once, read about depressive realism

[Anonymous No.23099259]

>>23099154
>The ultimate goal of antinatalism, which is the extinction of sentient life/consciousness is impossible
>is impossible
Literally it will happen, it's innevitable.
>choosing not to procreate or commit suicide does nothing, other than remove a potentially good life
There is no need to have children, it would be completely unnecessary to bring another retarded human here. Plus you are proving Benatar's point here, you reduce your perspective too much by disguising it as great one. You speak from the smallest perspective (I don't remember what it's called subspecies individualis or something) as if potential individual life matters above life in general. The more you increase your perspective, the more you will realize how fucked up and superficial your view of the world is. Simply put, you don't care about others, you only care about yourself. And in other words, you're a bitch.

[Anonymous No.23099265]

>>23099189
Anti-natalism will never succeed short of some comically evil psycho exterminating all life. There will always be people having kids so natalism will always be the dominant evolutionary strategy. Anti-natalism selects against itself, much like childhood leukemia, chastity, sterilization, Darwin award winners, etc. Furthermore, other animals will continue surviving and procreating, and the cycle will continue for as long as the universe can support life.

Also that's a pretty funny version of no u. Depression is literally mental illness and serves no advantage. It only makes you weaker and makes your experience worse. You assume that you have achieved the one truth, justifying your mental illness. It would bring you even more suffering to realize there are many different potential trajectories your life could have gone and that you are now stuck in a local minima, to borrow a term from optimization.

[Anonymous No.23099271]

>>23096132
Wagner knew a BLOODLINE and CLAN was necessary to carry on his legacy.

[Anonymous No.23099292]

>>23099138
Post tits o bfto

[Anonymous No.23099308]

>>23099265
Antinatalism will in last instance/ultimately succeed because everyone will die. And you can't do anything to avoid it being, retard.
>DEPRESSION IS... LE BAD
Nigga what? At least read the wiki about depressive realism.

[Anonymous No.23099325]

>>23096499
>There is no death cult trying to nuke the planet
I've often thought about this. Schopenhauer repeatedly says that non-existence is preferable to existence. If he could press the red button in the White House and plunge the world into WW3, a quick, swift, painless death for all mankind, would he press it? If he was consistent, he would.

[Anonymous No.23099350]

>>23096132
>How does one refute antinatalism
Testosterone enanthate, 300mg, injected weekly.

[Anonymous No.23099359]

>>23099308
It's estimated that all the stars will run out of fuel in more than 100 trillion years, that's about 1000 times the current age of the universe. And we don't know if the cycle continues on after that.

Haha yes, depression is bad. Depressed people don't like being depressed. Maybe you have some weird form of Stockholm syndrome and attribute value to your life because you are depressed. It seems that you value truth and little else, so hope that depressive realism is the one truth, giving you some modicum of satisfaction that you know it. Yet no one knows the full truth of reality, and if your philosophy leads you to depression, misery, and the end of your genetic line, then of what use was your philosophy?

[Anonymous No.23099397]

>>23099359
Yes bro, life will last as long as the stars last.
Yes, depressive realism is probably wrong. And epression is bad because... the status quo says so!
Anyways i don't think any bloodline is worth it unless you have a Stephen Hawking level intellect to pass on. But everyone will die anyway so it literally doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.23099407]

>>23099271
cute cute cute!

[Anonymous No.23099431]

>>23099407
That's just Franz Liszt

[Anonymous No.23099469]

>>23099397
Lol, if actual depressed people saying they don't like being depressed isn't enough then you're not much of a realist. Depression is associated with reduced cognitive abilities, lower energy, and lower survival. It serves no advantage. Might as well go full relativist and say suffering is bad only because the status quo says so too.

Anyway I hope you have a good day man. Best of luck to you in your life, I hope you find happiness.

[Anonymous No.23099484]

>>23099259
The irony of you calling my perspective on individuality limited, when Im capable of understanding that everyone is in fact One, and the barriers of individuation are an illusion, whilst you and Benatar are still incapable of understanding that there is no self that begins to exist at birth and ceases to exist at death, in the same vain that you didnt stop existing at one moment of your life, and reappear the next, even though there is no unifying substance of individuation that one might call "the soul", other than the universal awareness/consciousness and that this universal essence, call it Brahman, Logos, Monad, God whatever, has existed and will continue to exist for all eternity, as just much of a fundamental aspect of reality as the values of e and pi, actually very much alike considering that theyre also everchanging but constant all the same.

Also why are you so certain that life will just die and never reappear again, that is such a naive interpretation of modern cosmology it is baffling, there is no reason why considering the universe with life has come into existence before why it wont happen again, the thing with entropy which is what youre familiar here, is that it doesnt say that a closed system moves from a less ordered state to a more ordered state as a law, but rather that it is the most probable outcome for that to be the case, and given an infinite amount of time, and the fact that there is no possibility for anything to be experienced without an observer, the googol years inbetween this universe and the next one will pass in as little time as a person falling and waking from unconsciousness, that is no time at all will pass, and thus life will just reappear as if none of you efforts to eliminate it mattered at all, thus the best we can and should do is propagate as much good lives as possible, whilst minimizing the bad lives.

Yes philosophical pessimism/antinatalism seems correct at first once you get rid of most of your preconceptions, however once you get rid of the final most difficult to undo preconception that of a singular consistent self, that isnt simply the universal awareness, the whole philosophy quickly falls apart.

[Anonymous No.23099492]

>>23098987
>A man at risk of starving doesn't have the leisure of ruminating on how miserable his life is because he's too busy trying to find something to eat.

This makes the wager worse, not better.

[Anonymous No.23099508]

>>23099259
You're the biggest bitch in this thread, sis.
If all life dying out is inevitable, then what difference does it make to keep having kids? That they suffer for a while before disappearing forever? What does that matter if the only thing that matters is that it all ends? You speak of eternity, so you know what happens after you die, right?
Time will just accelerate into the end of all things. Everything happened before you were born, everything will happen after you die. So if you are such a selfless and enlightened being who cannot stand life suffering and needlessly/pointlessly perpetuating itself, I think you should kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.23099519]

>>23099508
>then what difference does it make to keep having kids?

Morality? Humanity, if you will? Even so-called common sense.

[Anonymous No.23099526]

>>23099519
The greatest virtue of anti-natalism is huffing your own farts, I see.

[Anonymous No.23099533]

>>23099526

Pardon?

[Anonymous No.23099545]

>>23099533
You even write like a bitch. You have nothing of value to say or bring to the table. No one will ever give a fuck about your mind virus opinions because they are worthless and useless. All there is for you is this smug sense of moral superiority that lucky for you depends on doing nothing but bitch about everything all the time. Christians are also smug moral high horse fart huffers, but at least they do something, at least they fuck.
There is no point in humoring you at all beyond passing time. Your entire existence is self-defeating. Keep reading your bleak books about how awful it is to be born, but please spare us your presence. It would make the world suck a little less if you just posting forever :)

[Anonymous No.23099554]

>>23097350
Enjoying life is the right thing. Quit overcomplicating it

[Anonymous No.23099556]

>>23099545

What is your point?

[Anonymous No.23099559]

>>23097369
>children
>no tangible benefit

[Anonymous No.23099571]

>>23098619
>Having children does not magically kill one's sex drive.
Tell that to my wife! Lol

[Anonymous No.23099606]

>>23098821
>Is literally the opposite to edgy
Then why would you bother with such a vacuous statement?
>Do you really think we'll survive until that or half of that lmao? The planet has less than 1000 years of life left.
Lol, only a thousand years? Anyways, the amount of time is irrelevant.
>It's a meme and a nonsense argument. Benatar would be embarrassed.
Just like all antinatalist arguments.
>Suffering is suffering. In any case, humans cause more suffering to other species than they receive it themselves.
And happiness is happiness. Stop saying such empty statements. And why does it matter that humans cause more suffering to other species? What, just because my antibacterial soap causes billions of bacteria to suffer, suddenly my own happiness is worthless?
>Always is wrong having a children.
Because they will always suffer? Even if they have more happiness than suffering? Even if they grow up to appreciate the life they were given?

[Anonymous No.23099611]

>>23096132
You point out that it's very likely hubris apriori to decide that after 800m years of sexual reproduction, your ancestors were incorrect.

[Anonymous No.23099667]

>>23099469
Literally, Benatar and depressive realism demonstrate that we cannot value our lives correctly due to inherent psychological biases. Of course, depresion could worsen the depressive's vision, but most of the time it helps them see things more objectively.
Even if depressed people don't like to be depressed, it doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Quite the opposite, cuck

[Anonymous No.23099684]

>>23099189
>everything ends, so nothing matters
As long as one's own life matters to them, then the end is irrelevant.
Wondering if the universe or humanity has a purpose or not is pointless: at some point in the grand scheme of things (even if it lies outside of the universe), there will exist a causeless cause.
So rather than bother focusing on that, it is more important to focus on the causes that affect you personally.

[Anonymous No.23099734]

>>23099571
based and boomer pilled

[Anonymous No.23099740]

>>23099143
Equalitarian cope

[Anonymous No.23099767]

>>23099684
I don't try to say that nothing matters, just that it doesn't matter how much they reproduce and try to perpetuate it. Life is just death postponed.
From all perspectives, life can have different meanings. But in the ultimate perspective (sub specie aeternitatis), life has no purpose or meaning. That is, almost everything matters to a greater or lesser extent, but in the end nothing matters at all.

[Anonymous No.23099772]

>>23099559
Your children aren't yours. Your wife and the State can take them away from you if they want, and they also have no obligations towards you when you become old.

It's true that kids can help their parents regardless of that, but keep in mind that your trad fantasy has no place outside the internet.

[Anonymous No.23099790]

ethics is pointless without empathy, empathy only exist for the preservation of our species, we only want to protect our species to protect life and anti-natalism rely on ethics

so yeah it's bullshit

[Anonymous No.23099796]

>>23099790
This is simply wrong. Otherwise people wouldn't be able to feel empathy for animals.

[Anonymous No.23099815]

>>23099767
And I'm saying that rather than focus on the end of life as a whole, to focus on your own individual life.
What really is the relevance of the purpose of human life to me?
Why should I care if humanity is all for nothing?
And what makes the perspective of the universe more valuable than that of the individual? Even if from the ultimate perspective, life has no purpose or meaning, why should that matter to individuals, whose perspectives hold more bearing on their own lives?

[Anonymous No.23099863]

>>23099790
>What is negative ethics?

[Anonymous No.23099881]

>>23099796
We only feel empathy for whatever is useful or similar to us in some way, that's why 99% of the world wants to purge all cockroaches.

[Anonymous No.23099906]

>>23099881
>moving the goalpost

[Anonymous No.23099917]

>>23099906
usefulness and similarity are for self preservation which was the original point

[Anonymous No.23099927]

>>23096132
Antinatalism is inherently dysgenic and supports the idea of a dying society, since without people, without others to endure life with us and experience the good, we are alone. To refuse bringing in another is as foolish as lamenting the death of darkness you feel eventually, as there is no difference between failure to exist and death after life. Instead, the only true way that you can curb death is to do your part by bringing someone here to experience the wonders of reality, the truly beautiful and interesting, the rush of emotions and life that is within you, and your job as the bringer of this life is to teach those who you bring how to live with purpose. Those that have no purpose, that are useless or cannot help others, are immature and unable, they will never find purpose, but just as you raise a plant from a seed, your influence can make it grand or kill it at will. Be the person who can, while you are here, spread what is good and fight what is evil, after all there is no purpose to life other than what you make of it. No use not lettting someone who doesnt exist not have fun because they fail to be here for it.

[Anonymous No.23099988]

>>23099508
>then what difference does it make to keep having kids?
The difference is that if we became extinct now, we would affirm the inevitable and the irremediable would happen much faster. With many, eons, countless fewer victims than those who will be taken by following in the footsteps of trannies like you. It's as Lovecraft and Benatar say, it is simply the thing that makes the most sense, the most logical thing to do.
>>23099545
I don't consider myself arrogant in general because I almost always think about the possibility that I could be wrong. But I'm probably not, and even if I was. Virtually i care about every being/organic garbage and fewer people will be harmed if the antinatalism conclusion is followed.

[Anonymous No.23100018]

>>23099927
You can use all the copes you want. You can heroize your pathetic existence by saying:
>Life is a fight for the... LE STRONG!
Pretend to be the good guy in all your stories, but you will die. Your family, your ugly and dysgenic offspring. Your enemies, even what you don't care about and also what you don't know. You're nothing, deal with it

[Anonymous No.23100037]

>>23100018
At least i had fun and wasnt miserable doing so, your existence is pathetic but i got what i wanted and did what i could, used the gift of nautre to make life worth living and then you, look at you, so lost and unhappy because of your own behavior- pathetic and weak you must be to be unable to enjoy nature around you and love the world for what it has rather than hate it for what it doesnt. Spoiled brat you are, you deserve nothing.

[Anonymous No.23100056]

>>23099772
Oh so you're an mgtow retard

[Anonymous No.23100095]

>>23100037
You don't love the world, you love masturbating thinking you do. It gives the impression that you spend all your time heroizing and idealizing him, love, honor, strength, beauty, etc. The average normalfag does it too... yes the natalists, the population with the highest sub-human percentage. Like them, you are so afraid of death that you would break your son's head in exchange for not being tortured.

[Anonymous No.23100133]

>>23100095
>You don't love the world, you love masturbating thinking you do
NTA but how can you claim to know his thoughts and intentions? It seems more likely that you're projecting your misery onto him, saying that since there's no way he cod actually enjoy life he must be deluded

[Anonymous No.23100146]

>>23100095
This is false, i am a happy person and enjoy what i do. I am stable and have people that love me, the world has taken from me but also given back and allowed me to self manifest. We do not live in a truly unfair world and your personal projections are incompatible with the reality of how i feel and operate. Those that project onto others are insecure and believe they are the apex and there is no other. Your self loathing will kill you and it would have been your decision all along to do so.

[Anonymous No.23100155]

>>23099815
>What really is the relevance of the purpose of human life to me?
>Why should I care if humanity is all for nothing?
>And what makes the perspective of the universe more valuable than that of the individual?
With the broadest perspective you can take the most relevant approach. The all-encompassing, and therefore morally most important, awakens from the egoistic slumber to an altruistic perspective of the world. The individual perspective is just about getting dopamine and masturbating most of the time
>Fuck everyone, not my... LE PROBLEM.
It's a path full of cowardice that also lacks meaning (not to mention it only makes things worse).

[Anonymous No.23100206]

>>23100133
>>23100146
You faggots simply confirm what Benatar claims with every answer you offer me. I say that you like to masturbate thinking that you love the world, because that's how the optimistic psychological bias works. It reduces perspective so that the body can feel good, preventing it from seeing beyond itself but always affirming yes, otherwise it would feel bad. In other words, it's following your ape instincts, embracing what feels good, but not doing what is right. People like you are simply disqualified from being moralists/ethics because it's impossible for them to be altruistic, because they do not want to. You are not hurt by the pain of others, you do not care about the world and you will never be able to love anyone.

[Anonymous No.23100289]

>>23100155
>With the broadest perspective you can take the most relevant approach.
What? Wouldn't the most specific perspective offer the most relevant approach for a particular individual?
> The all-encompassing, and therefore morally most important
Why would the all-encompassing one be the most important?
>egoistic slumber to an altruistic perspective of the world
It is possible to reconcile the egoistic desire to have a child with the altruistic desire to prevent others from experiencing pain.
It can be done by recognizing the altruistic desire to have a child and give them the experience of happiness and that the child will form their own ego and make their own decisions regarding their happiness.
>The individual perspective is just about getting dopamine and masturbating most of the time
Sounds like a projection of your own pathetic self. Please, go outside and interact with normal people.
>Fuck everyone, not my... LE PROBLEM.
What's the problem? The fact that we can't know the purpose of human existence beyond our biological functions?
If that bothers you, that's a you problem. I know my purpose in life and that is sufficient.
>It's a path full of cowardice that also lacks meaning (not to mention it only makes things worse).
Really? Antinatalism is the most cowardly perspective: no courage to fix their problems and no courage to take their own life, just "I wish I was never born".

[Anonymous No.23100309]

>>23099484
Maybe you are right. But I had already adopted this "position" a few years ago, I felt my empathy reduced and I felt better. Simply allow time for this vision and even more to fit God into it. That everything continues like this also makes you feel better, because you feel smaller as if everything was getting out of hand, we were not in the power to do something, much less moralistic.
>A God manages everything, it's not my problem. Just an opium

[Anonymous No.23100436]

>>23100289
>What? Wouldn't the most specific perspective offer the most relevant approach for a particular individual?
Morally speaking, no. Because the individual's perspective is not altruistic and therefore irrelevant.
>Why would the all-encompassing one be the most important?
By defining what is right more rigorously, even questioning whether life should be continued.
>It's possible to reconcile the egoistic desire to have a child with the altruistic desire to prevent others from experiencing pain.
If we talk about people, it is not possible to avoid the pain of others, at least not in a useful way. Furthermore, helping others makes things worse, because humans are not saints, they are demons. The only way to avoid someone's pain is for them not to be born.
>It can be done by recognizing the altruistic desire to have a child
Seeking happiness is what women want, in fact it is opposed to doing the right thing, because pleasure is just an effect of pain.
>Sounds like a projection of your own pathetic self. Please, go outside and interact with normal people.
Retards who cling to selfishness can't do anything but masturbate all day.
>What's the problem?
The problem of evil, the only real problem
>The fact that we can't know the purpose of human existence beyond our biological functions?
There are purposes from all perspectives, except the last.
>Really? Antinatalism is the most cowardly perspective: no courage to fix their problems and no courage to take their own life, just "I wish I was never born".
The individual perspective only cares about masturbating itself and not solving anything, but it makes the situation worse with its selfish simian whims. The anti-inatalist perspective attempts to resolve the problem of evil definitively.

[Anonymous No.23100564]

>>23096132
Simple, you just point out that it's a phase like colored hair, bisexuality, or huffing paint

[Anonymous No.23100581]

>>23099606
>And why does it matter that humans cause more suffering to other species? >What, just because my antibacterial soap causes billions of bacteria to suffer, suddenly my own happiness is worthless?
You are human, the negative value of your life is so great that it is worth less than that of a fly.

[Anonymous No.23100599]

>>23096132
Schopy was neither an antinatalist nor a pronatalist. Black and white burger mentality detected.

[Anonymous No.23100628]

the absolute gall to think you could come to a conclusion about the immorality of having children when it is your parents' refusal to subscribe to that belief that allows you to come to that conclusion

[Anonymous No.23100642]

>>23100436
>Because the individual's perspective is not altruistic and therefore irrelevant.
How can you say that there are no individuals with altruistic perspectives on the purpose of their own life?
If they believe that the purpose of their life was to help others, it would be by definition altruistic.
Even if they hold an egoistic perspective, why would that make their perspective irrelevant to their own life?
Must they believe their purpose is to help others in order to have purpose?
You said yourself that the ultimate perspective is that there is no purpose.
If there is no purpose, how can that perspective be altruistic, and by your own logic, relevant?
>By defining what is right more rigorously, even questioning whether life should be continued.
So attached to this ultimate perspective is a set of moral values, and because of how they are defined, it is made more valuable?
And somehow, these values exactly correspond to the ones that you hold as an individual?
Whatever (you make no sense at all). Just tell me why the all-encompassing perspective defines what is right more rigorously than that of an individual perspective.
>If we talk about people, it is not possible to avoid the pain of others, at least not in a useful way. Furthermore, helping others makes things worse, because humans are not saints, they are demons. The only way to avoid someone's pain is for them not to be born.
You have a warped sense of how people act, so I can only guess that you have been abused. Just because there are bad parents, doesn't mean that good parents shouldn't have children. Yeah, if you weren't born, you won't have ever felt pain, but you also would never have the chance to experience happiness.
>Seeking happiness is what women want, in fact it is opposed to doing the right thing, because pleasure is just an effect of pain.
Damn, I guess I'm a woman now since I seek happiness.
Let me get this straight: happiness can only be experienced if there is pain?
Like, if I eat and enjoy a piece of candy, it's only because I experienced pain?
>Retards who cling to selfishness can't do anything but masturbate all day.
Please seek help.
>The problem of evil, the only real problem
Woah, that vague statement explains everything!
>There are purposes from all perspectives, except the last.
Again, be specific and elaborate. By last, do you mean the ultimate one?
What if I say I don't know the purpose of human existence (which, I really don't; I really only know my own purpose). That contradicts what you said about there being purposes from all perspectives.
>The individual perspective only cares about masturbating itself and not solving anything, but it makes the situation worse with its selfish simian whims. The anti-inatalist perspective attempts to resolve the problem of evil definitively.
Again, seek help. It sounds like you need therapy.
Also, you imply that people are evil, could you then define evil?

[Anonymous No.23100708]

>>23100581
>You are human, the negative value of your life is so great that it is worth less than that of a fly.
What do you mean by the value of a life? What are we measuring here? Karma? Environmental value? Or is this just a reflection of your self-value? Or is just you being annoying (feels like you just want to troll or be edgy)?
Putting aside the fact the value is negative (implying that humans are worth destroying) (since your scale is arbitrary, all that matters are the ordinal values). Out of curiosity, where would bacteria fall on this scale? Before or after humans?

[Anonymous No.23100853]

>>23096132

There are a few ways that come up my mind.

1. The negativity of thought cannot overcome the positivity of existence.

2. A Daoist approach. Zhuangzi can be used to overcome any form of Antinatalism

https://iep.utm.edu/zhuangzi-chuang-tzu-chinese-philosopher/

A quote from the article

"We need at the very least to undo preconceptions that prevent us from seeing things and events in new ways; we need to see how we can structure and restructure the boundaries of things. But we can only do so when we ourselves have ‘wandered beyond’ the boundaries of the familiar."

3. Scepticism. Here from the same article on Daoism a remark on ancient greek sceptic position.

"Arguing from a position of fallibilism, these latter feel that we ought never to make any final judgments that go beyond the immediate evidence, or the immediate appearances. We should simply accept what appears at face value and have no further beliefs about its ultimate consequences, or its ultimate value. In particular, we should refrain from making judgments about whether it is good or bad for us. We bracket (epoche) these ultimate judgments. When we see that such things are beyond our ability to know with certainty, we will learn to let go of our anxieties and accept the things that happen to us with equanimity. Such a state of emotional tranquility they call ‘ataraxia.’"

4. Recognizing Antinatalism as a Weltanschauung.

5. Meditating on silence. Stilling the mind and judgements.

6. Understaning that nihilists, antinatalists talk about themselves when they talk about "the world and the error of being born". Its not about the human conditon and life but about their feelings towards life.

There are many ways, in the end Antinatalists need a therapy, not a metaphysical argument.

[Anonymous No.23100893]

>>23096132
Antinatalism is pretty much cold war between the leader country and its weaker allies. They go like: hey, let's lower our genetic output together! :) , except WE won't as we get the quality blood anyway, on your expense, while you take the triple loss from said migration, your own pruning and the mixed bag stock what you would have to get elsewhere.

[Anonymous No.23100900]

>>23100628

And?

[Anonymous No.23100965]

Making sure mankind thrive is objectively our purpose, it's literally why nature and our ancestors created us for, it's on our DNA, it explain all our emotions and even the way we think, you can personally not have kids for countless valid reasons but it makes no sense to preach that everybody should just let life die out unless you believe in some kind of religion or whatever but in this case you are ignoring philosophy and science.

[Anonymous No.23100999]

>>23097517
You can if you want to bro. There are people out there that see themselves as human yet still go apeshit.
>>23097541
Reality*
You exist because your ancestors fucked and the rest didn't. This cycle will continue.
>>23098579
>>23098655
It's natural for people without offspring to remove themselves from the competition to make way for the ones that had offspring. This is how natural selection works. Because life, at its core, wants to continue. Anti-Natalism is a self-correcting trait.

[Anonymous No.23101000]

>>23100965
>it makes no sense to preach that everybody should just let life die out
It makes as much sense as preaching that mankind should thrive.

[Anonymous No.23101005]

>>23100999
>You exist because your ancestors fucked and the rest didn't
Yes, and?

[Anonymous No.23101015]

>>23096132
By not being a sad cunt

[Anonymous No.23101023]

ITT

[Anonymous No.23101044]

>>23101000
Only if we reach the point where nothing matters in this case you have no reason to even care about it nevermind preach it.

[Anonymous No.23101050]

>>23100999
>Because life, at its core, wants to continue
And so does entropy.

[Anonymous No.23101084]

>>23101023
>life needs a "meaning" written in the stars or something
>no it being written on our own genetics does not count because God or whatever didn't wrote it
that sounds like someone that didn't adapt well to no longer having a deity to tell them whatever is objectively right or wrong

[Anonymous No.23101101]

>>23096132

anti-natalism is self defeating

those who choose not to reproduce will leave no legacy for the future

those who partake in it vanish from history, those who don't continue existing

its a stillborn ideology

[Anonymous No.23101103]

>>23096132
Why is it only white people that come up with most self destructive ideas and concepts?
Does it come with the small dick?

[Anonymous No.23101120]

>>23101084
Meaning is always external, so by definition the meaning of life cannot be contained in life itself. Even if life has meaning, it's inaccessible to living beings. Pretending that the meaning of life can be known immanently is a type of religious delusion in itself — it's pantheism for the masses.

[Anonymous No.23101163]

>>23097084
>without God morality is relative and meaningless
But it's also meaningless with god. We've seen many terrible religious societies encouraging suicide bombing, being perpetually in a state of war. Most highly atheistic states are safe and prosperous. Reality defeats your argument.

[Anonymous No.23101173]

>>23097451
>You exist to procreate
No, there is no purpose for existing. You exist, that's all you know. You may or may not want to procreate, depending on your surroundings or luck or your genetics. Live moves on regardless.

[Anonymous No.23101196]

>>23101173
>No, there is no purpose for existing.
and there is no need to have a purpose

[Anonymous No.23101237]

>>23101101
says the retard whos only contribution to humanity was being a flesh automaton and waste his life on "work" have some more new automatons to replace him once he is defective, you are no different from a beast farmed for meat, your existence is nothing and absolutely meaningless so get down from that fucking high horse.

[Anonymous No.23101279]

>>23101101
>How can you say that there are no individuals with altruistic perspectives on the purpose of their own life?
>Even if they hold an egoistic perspective, why would that make their perspective irrelevant to their own life?
>Must they believe their purpose is to help others in order to have purpose?
>You said yourself that the ultimate perspective is that there is no purpose.
If there is no purpose, how can that perspective be altruistic, and by your own logic, relevant?
>Just tell me why the all-encompassing perspective defines what is right more rigorously than that of an individual perspective.
>What if I say I don't know the purpose of human existence (which, I really don't; I really only know my own purpose). That contradicts what you said about there being purposes from all perspectives.
The individual perspective focuses on the individual. His benefit, he is not moralistic, like you. You are trying to merge the perspectives, as if the purpose of helping others belongs to the individualist when that purpose clearly belongs to the perspective of the family onwards (where retard altruism begins). You speak as if the ultimate perspective has less value because it removes all purpose and relevance from our existence, but it is the most relevant because it is the one that focuses on everything and, at least in my opinion, is altruistic in a negative way (real altruism). The last perspective (Subspecies aeternitatis) is the approach with which negative ethics was born.
>I can only guess that you have been abused
Nah
>Yeah, if you weren't born, you won't have ever felt pain, but you also would never have the chance to experience happiness.
>Let me get this straight: happiness can only be experienced if there is pain?
I notice that you always focus on the individual perspective, I guess you do your best to avoid the terrible things that happen every day, do you ever watch/read the news? The world is completely screwed. In short, happiness is an effect of pain. Or in other words, for there to be happiness in ONE living being, there must always be a lot of pain in other living beings. And that hasn't changed.
>Also, you imply that people are evil, could you then define evil?
People are the definition of evil, also pic rel.

[Anonymous No.23101285]

You don’t have to because if you subtract religion, there’s no reason to be an antinatalist. It doesn’t necessarily follow that because it’s evident that you suffer in human life, that you should terminate human life. That’s just an unjustified ethical mandate. In fact, it can only come out of a very confused religious ethic.

[Anonymous No.23101341]

>>23101237
let me tell you a secret boy

there is no free will, you are just a robot following your orders, you just think you found the "real order" and the other robots are wrong, your "freedom" is just a pretty word to the real order you are supposed to follow

[Anonymous No.23101683]

>>23101279
>The individual perspective focuses on the individual. ... as if the purpose of helping others belongs to the individualist
I consider the line between egoism and altruism as blurry. Personally, I enjoy helping others and going out of my way to make people happy. I receive gratification, so can't entirely be said that it isn't in my own self-interest. I suppose I subscribe to psychological egoism to some extent.
>clearly belongs to the perspective of the family
It sounds like you ascribe a single perspective to different groups, instead of recognizing that there exists sets of perspectives that different specie can hold.
For example, I can see a group of people with an "egoistic" perspective that considers purpose of life to serve the group. But there can also be an "altruistic" perspective that considers the purpose of life to include helping those within their community and other groups.
>it is the one that focuses on everything and, at least in my opinion, is altruistic in a negative way
Okay, okay, let's say that the ultimate perspective is altruistic and the most important. What does it even mean to be the most important? Most important to me, an individual?
Should I now start living my life to fulfill this ultimate purpose? I can't because it has no relevancy to me. It can only be fulfilled at the end of time because it is part of an all-encompassing perspective. All it is in the end is another perspective to look at the purpose of life from.
So what is the point of even considering it? I can't do anything to change it or fulfill it. However, my individual perspective I can change and fulfill. I can even change it to align with the perspectives of higher specie. So it is of the highest relevancy, because it is the one I am in most control of and has the greatest influence on my life (I suppose you can even control the perspectives of higher specie comprised of groups of people; take religion as an example of this change).
>I guess you do your best to avoid the terrible things that happen every day, do you ever watch/read the news? The world is completely screwed.
Bad shit happens, but so do good things, so don't be such a doomer about it.
> for there to be happiness in ONE living being, there must always be a lot of pain in other living beings.
Correlation != Causation
If a parent plays peek-a-boo with their child and makes them laugh, are you going to tell me who had to suffer because of that joy?
And what if I live a completely self-sufficient lifestyle. Veganism, green energy, you name it. Who stands to suffer from my existence?
>People are the definition of evil, also pic rel.
The ramblings of some depressed guy from the 19th century is any sort of proper evidence.
If people are evil, then you are evil. If you are so concerned with altruism, why don't you remove some evil from the world and kill yourself?
No? Then you must be really evil, since you know there is evil that you can do something about, but refuse to.

[Anonymous No.23101701]

>>23101683
*isn't any sort of proper evidence.

[Anonymous No.23101710]

>>23096132
Life is meaningful but human life is meaningless. I support speciecide. I don't care if people have children that suffer. Not my problem.
Therefore, I am not antinatalist because I don't care when I see children suffer, especially of the snow nig variety.

[Anonymous No.23101909]

>>23101683
The point is that the ultimate perspective is objective/inter-subjective. Your "purpose" is gay and subjective, a invented and retarded lie. 0 moral value. Pure masturbating, you are only choosing whatever makes you feel better, blinded by the optimistic psychological bias that Benatar talks about. Your conception of good and evil is not moral. Sound like if you believe something is good and bad because it feels that way. You just don't seem incapable of understanding ethics, much less will you understand negative ethics.
You even think that helping or doing the right thing towards someone is equivalent to making them smile, feeling good. Are you kidding? And finally, obviously our species is the most evil, fucked up and destructive. Literally Homo perniciosus. Why the fuck should I kill myself? -1 in 8 billion fucking humans that keep increasing doesn't make any fucking difference.

[Anonymous No.23101931]

>>23101683
>And what if I live a completely self-sufficient lifestyle. Veganism, green energy, you name it. Who stands to suffer from my existence?
Haven't you seen Earthlings? Even as a vegan your mere existence already indirectly causes the torture of at least 22 animals a year or something like that.

[Anonymous No.23101935]

>>23096920
It's not, but keep telling yourself that

[Anonymous No.23101940]

>>23100056
They have point though, take away the state and the rights of women and the problem solves itself overnight

[Anonymous No.23101950]

>>23099667
Benatar is just the Idealist version of Mark Fisher. At least Fisher had the decency to take himself and practice what he preached

[Anonymous No.23101959]

>>23096132
Most antinatalists are wholly in favor of the childfree life, until you start bringing ethnic minorities into the equation and then they all get weirded out. Ever notice that?

[Anonymous No.23101975]

>>23101935
It's. Keep coping

[Anonymous No.23101988]

>>23101950
>>23096132
In Benatar's book that touches on the topic of suicide, he literally shows that the guys who go around saying
>Le Kys xD
are fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.23102017]

>>23101909
>Your "purpose" is gay and subjective, a invented and retarded lie. 0 moral value.
The idea that all life has no purpose at all is also subjective.
>Pure masturbating
You really are a gross person. I'm glad that people like you are only found in the dirty corners of the internet.
>you are only choosing whatever makes you feel better
Who are you to say that?
Maybe you are just picking something that makes you feel like some sort of realist?
>blinded by the optimistic psychological bias that Benatar talks about
You really love Benatar, huh? You bring him up constantly, parroting his talking points, like whatever authority he has means anything to me.
>Sound like if you believe something is good and bad because it feels that way.
Again, who are you to say that like you know me?
>You even think that helping or doing the right thing towards someone is equivalent to making them smile, feeling good.
Hmmm, maybe you never have done anything good for anybody in your life, but I know that when I do good things for people, people tend to like it for some weird reason. It's not always the case, but there is a pretty strong correlation there.
>Are you kidding?
No.
>And finally, obviously our species is the most evil, fucked up and destructive.
When your definition of evil is people, yeah, of course that will be the case, dumbass.
But even without that definition, sure, humans do the most evil stuff, but they also do the most amazing, good, beautiful things, and I love that part of humanity.
>Why the fuck should I kill myself? -1 in 8 billion fucking humans that keep increasing doesn't make any fucking difference.
But it's still a difference, unless you think you are capable of doing more good in your lifetime that would make a greater difference. But if that's the case for you, isn't that the case for everyone else?
Otherwise, I guess you don't care about making a difference at all, so you should just quit your yapping.

>>23101931
I haven't addressed it in this conversation yet, but for some reason you seem to value the lives humans and other species equally. Which is pretty bizarre (it's not like any other species would value your life equally). How far does that extend (would you be willing to sacrifice a child to save a dozen animals, a 100 animals, maybe a whole species?)?

[Anonymous No.23102025]

>>23102017
Pathetic humanist. I hope you get crushed.
>would you be willing to sacrifice a child to save a dozen animals, a 100 animals, maybe a whole species?
Yes, without hesitation.

[Anonymous No.23102031]

>>23102025
Based

[Anonymous No.23102042]

>>23096132
You can't. Schopenhauer legitimately ended philosophy. He won. Nietzsche was a hack for thinking he could improve upon the GOAT. You either believe in God or there is zero reason you should not be antinatalist.

[Anonymous No.23102047]

>>23102025
>Pathetic humanist. I hope you get crushed.
Nice argument. I guess it just goes to show that antinatalists are bitter, angry people, who preach a twisted altruism one second and then wish evil upon people the next.
>Yes, without hesitation.
:(

[Anonymous No.23102052]

>>23096556
You could've ended this at the first line, I'm convinced. Whether it's religion or Schopenhauer, there always needs to be an end ideology. Christianity preaches the virtue of virginity, so the obsessed autists die off and don't start doing crazy shit with the religion. Schopenhauer btfos every giga brain hack that could ever exist, he brings down society's IQ to save people like him from having to suffer in this shit world, other giga brains.

[Anonymous No.23102071]

test

[Anonymous No.23102076]

>>23102047
I'm not that anon. I am not antinatalist, but I am personally child free. I am not antinatalist because I don't give a shit that your children will invariably suffer in the upcoming economic collapse or whatever else tragedy. Moreover, if they're snow nigs, then seeing them suffer would make me feel even better.

[Anonymous No.23102084]

>>23096132
>performative contradiction

If they don't like it, they're free to rope. No one's obliged to accept propositions that entail roping if true, even if they were true.

[Anonymous No.23102088]

>>23102076
>but I am personally child free.
That's fine, IDC if other people have kids or not. I just don't like it when other people say you can't.
>snow nigs
What does that mean? Like, I get it's racist, but does it mean white people? You should probably come up with a better slur, otherwise normal people (non/anti-racist) like myself will get confused.

[Anonymous No.23102124]

>>23102088
>I just don't like it when other people say you can't.
Sure, and I don't like it when people say I should be compassionate towards people's children during a time of immense ecological catastrophe and more. Frankly, I don't care if your children suffer. It's not my problem.
>better slur?
I guess Nordshit is better. I hope more trucks of peace come their way.

[Anonymous No.23102189]

>>23102124
>Sure, and I don't like it when people say I should be compassionate towards people's children during a time of immense ecological catastrophe and more. Frankly, I don't care if your children suffer. It's not my problem.
Do people say that a lot? I mean, I get why (compassion is just decency), but yeah, it's not your responsibility.
>Nordshit
Come on, I think you can do better than that. As a Swede, I'm not feeling anything. With snow nig, you were just piggybacking on another slur (not even saying the full word) and this is just a portmanteau of nordic and shit.
If you want it to hurt, it can't be a straight out obscenity. Think of the slur "jap"; it just an abbreviation, but it carries weight with it. You got to pick something simple, and let it naturally become more offensive over time.
You don't want to look pathetic in front racist buddies when you are out racisting (you will, of course, look pathetic to everyone else just for being a racist).

[Anonymous No.23102200]

>>23102189
I am sure there is a way to ground normativity in a metaphysics, but I realize that would be a waste of time with a simple-minded moron like you.
>Swede
Ah, no wonder you're a quasi nihilist.

No point in continuing this correspondence. Sure, you can reject all normativity in a purely materialistic/physicalist worldview.

[Anonymous No.23102230]

>>23102200
>I am sure there is a way to ground normativity in a metaphysics, but I realize that would be a waste of time with a simple-minded moron like you.
Just save yourself time by saying you can't, lol.

>No point in continuing this correspondence.
See ya! I enjoyed this (it's fun to pick apart arguments, especially ridiculous ones). Hope you get the help you need.

[Anonymous No.23102235]

>>23102230
>Just save yourself time by saying you can't, lol.
Yes, I can. Grounding normativity in a metaphysics is not that difficult. However, defending the metaphysics to be convincing is difficult, yes.
>it's fun to pick apart arguments, especially ridiculous ones
You're confusing people.

[Anonymous No.23102383]

test

[Anonymous No.23102582]

>>23102042
Schopenahuers own philosophy refutes antinatalism, if you were to actually take his conceptions of will and representation for what they are, unfortunately when talking about antinatalism he decides to ignore his previous insights and starts treating new lives as somehow being disturbances in the will-in-itself, as opposed to a seamless continuation, aswell as ignoring his realization that individuation of subjects is an illusion, and treating these new subjects as somehow being entirely separate and unique existences.
Also I dont quite understand how life/the will, doesnt have an ultimate purpose, when the purpose is literally simply to exist and manifest itself, yes its not a glorious purpose, but it absoluty is a purpose and it justifies the existence of life and the suffering within.

[@w2wymjrx:private.coffee No.23102599]

>>23096132
if the aim is to reduce suffering, humans are the only species capable of that
without our intervention, evolution will grind on for another 500 million - 1 billion years

[Anonymous No.23102656]

>>23102017
>The idea that all life has no purpose at all is also subjective.
Lmao no
>You really are a gross person.
I think the same thing about you amplified to a thousand. I'd break your fucking skull in, you fucking trash.
but they also do the most amazing, good, beautiful things, and I love that part of humanity.
Kek no, they are absolute organic garbage.
>Hmmm, maybe you never have done anything good for anybody in your life, but I know that when I do good things for people, people tend to like it for some weird reason. It's not always the case, but there is a pretty strong correlation there.
Not moral, helping people (morally talking) in any way is retarded as fuck
Helping someone feel good is not even considered moral for normal ethics. You're a woman? Because you definitely don't care about being honorable
>Otherwise, I guess you don't care about making a difference at all, so you should just quit your yapping.
Doing anything for them is impossible. There are 8 billion people who do the opposite (morally talking) every millisecond of the day, avoiding the evil they do would be avoiding all those milliseconds. I haven't even managed to avoid a second so far, in fact I've increased them like everyone else does. It's almost impossible, this place is definitely hell lmao.
>I haven't addressed it in this conversation yet, but for some reason you seem to value the lives humans and other species equally. Which is pretty bizarre (it's not like any other species would value your life equally). How far does that extend (would you be willing to sacrifice a child to save a dozen animals, a 100 animals, maybe a whole species?)?
I don't consider them equal, they are both organic garbage, yes. But humans are a trillion times worse. And obviously it would not save either the child or the animals, the best thing would be (morally speaking) for the entire species of animals to become extinct and the retarded child to die alongside them.

[Anonymous No.23103185]

>>23101988
If antinatalists claim life isn't worth living, why don't they kill themselves? All I've heard is cope to handle the cognitive dissonance.

[Anonymous No.23103193]

>>23102656
Lol. You are so clearly unhinged and mentally ill that it's darkly humorous.

[Anonymous No.23103540]

>>23096132
because the species must continue, but why should it? humans suck

[Anonymous No.23103548]

>>23097305
Flippant nihilism and unironic antinatalism are the two most reddit ideologies there are

[Anonymous No.23103653]

>>23103548
>adult swim
t. reddit

[Anonymous No.23104436]

>>23103193
I think the same about you but instead of black humor, it horrifies me. The lack of empathy that everyone professes really bothers me and exasperates me. They literally don't care about others, zero honor and altruism. Reminds me to pic rel.

[Anonymous No.23104475]

>>23096132
One doesn't. Life's shit, the world's a hell, and those, whomever they may be, who forced us into this Ixionic wheel deserve a none-to-slow annihilation.

[Anonymous No.23104480]

>>23096132
You're coping that you don't have a GF.

[Anonymous No.23104606]

>>23104480
No Op, but I literally became antinatalist after having one.

[Anonymous No.23105082]

>>23096132
Telling them the world will end up being all Chinese/Indian and black?

[Anonymous No.23105296]

>>23096499
>The proof is that nobody has gone on a killing spree to end other people's suffering.
Google Adam Lanza

[Anonymous No.23105716]

>>23097065
just get over it man fuck

[Anonymous No.23105976]

>>23103185
But I want to kill all humans. I can't achieve that while being dead.

[Anonymous No.23105983]

>>23099271
They did ruin it by associating with Nazis though.

[Anonymous No.23106132]

>>23097065
>The thought of having an offspring who shared the genes of a man that you hate, is insufferable
but enough about my mother

[Anonymous No.23106631]

>>23097084
>without God morality is relative and meaningless
God does not exist and neither do morality nor meaning, you delude yourself into believing in unicorn but they're stil a fantasy
>causing suffering is not unethical
Ethic is meaningless wordplay, suffering is a fact
Existence is suffering, everything else is cope by smart monkeys

[Anonymous No.23106659]

>>23096691
>objective faith
No such thing. You believe as an individual, faith is subjective and so is relationship with God. Claiming otherwise is butchering the language.

[Anonymous No.23106691]

>>23096655
>>23103548
Antinatalism doesn't mean that someone has a deathwish. Anitinatalists believe that people shouldn't be born and letting human life die out peacefully without needing to murder anyone because, surprise, they aren't genocidal maniacs.
Schopenhauer personally believe that life is useless suffering and that it would be a great mercy to not bring any more creatures into this world.

[Anonymous No.23106698]

>>23096499
>>23106691

[Anonymous No.23106858]

>>23106691
Again, Schopenhauers own metaphysics debunks antinatalism, as he himself is aware that individuation is an illusion, and that everyone is in fact One, which means that after you die consciousness doesnt just end, instead it simply moves on to a different vessel instantaneously atemporally, meaning that you can be “reborn” in the distant future, or in the past, thus both killing yourself and not having children ultimately makes no difference, since whilst it eliminates potential future suffering which is good, now it eliminating potential future pleasure is no longer not bad, since the preference for pleasure will still exist no matter what since its a matter of a universal will, not a individual one, thus all youre doing by eliminating a mostly good life, is removing more potential good from the universe than potential bad, which is bad.

You have to understand, if Benatars assymetry were to be taken at face value without involving metaphysics like this, there is no rational reason to believe that ceasing to exist as fast as possible is somehow not in everyones interest.

And life isnt useless, it is absolutely necessary because it fulfills its purpose of simply being, its not a grandiose purpose, but mere existence, and that existence being actualized through self-observation via consciousness is the ultimate purpose of life, there is no end goal because we are already fulfilling our end goal, its just a matter of whether we realize it or not.

[Anonymous No.23106868]

Believing in God and being an antinatalist is not a foreign concept. the first followers of Jesus were the gnostics (before christians were a thing), a lot of sects were antinatalist and did not want to make more suffering here on earth. hell is also a relatively new concept.

[Anonymous No.23107985]

>>23106631
Then stop existing lul

[Anonymous No.23108026]

>>23102656
Feeling good is a real thing that we can achieve. Honor is a concept we made up to make society work together easier. Why you think one is superior to the other is beyond me

[Anonymous No.23108401]

>>23108026
Honor is the adherence to what is right.
Feeling good is the achieve of the ape instinct

[Anonymous No.23109375]

>>23096132
simple
"you're making a moral argument, fag"

[Anonymous No.23109417]

>>23109375
based and spookpilled

[Anonymous No.23109471]

>>23104436
Fitting, since Thomas Ligotti is mentally ill.

Your real solution is suicide. Though if you don't have the courage to follow your convictions then natural selection will take its course in due time.

[Anonymous No.23109479]

>>23096132
>involving God in the equation
Transcendental argument for the existence of God

[Anonymous No.23109940]

>>23106858
how about you read his books before commenting on his philosophy.

[Anonymous No.23110246]

Reminder every antinatalist is a potential threat to society.
Hopefully the feds are keeping tabs on these wackos.

[Anonymous No.23110267]

>>23110246
how is he wrong though?

[Anonymous No.23110511]

>>23110246
I didn't know Adam Lanza was this based. Did he write a manifesto?

[Anonymous No.23110573]

>>23109471
Yes, normalfags think that caring about others and wanting to prevent suffering is mental illness.

[Anonymous No.23110578]

>>23110246
>ice cream example
Lmao, literally a fucking retard used that example in this thread.

[Anonymous No.23110684]

>>23109940
>Individuation is merely an appearance, born of Space and Time; the latter being nothing else than the forms under which the external world necessarily manifests itself to me, conditioned as they are by my brain's faculty of perception. Hence also the plurality and difference of individuals is but a phaenomenon, that is, exists only as my mental picture. My true inmost being subsists in every living thing, just as really, as directly as in my own consciousness it is evidenced only to myself. This is the higher knowledge: for that which there is in Sanskrit the standing formula, tat tvam asi, that art thou.
>For just as in dreams, all the persons that appear to us are but the masked images of ourselves; so in the dream of our waking life, it is our own being which looks on us from out our neighbours' eyes, though this is not equally easy to discern. Nevertheless, tat tvam asi.
>We saw earlier that hatred and malice are conditioned by egoism and that these are based on cognition caught up in the principium individuationis [the principle of individuation]. We also found that seeing through that principium individuationis is the origin and essence both of justice and, when it goes further, of love and nobility at the very highest levels. By eradicating the distinction between one's own individual and that of others, this is the only thing that makes possible and explains perfect dispositional goodness that goes as far as the most disinterested love and the most generous self-sacrifice for the sake of others.

But if this seeing through the principium individuationis, this immediate cognition of the identity of the will in all of its appearances, is present at a high degree of clarity, then it will at once show an even greater influence on the will. If the veil of maya, the principium individuationis, is lifted from a human being's eyes to such an extent that he no longer makes the egoistic distinction between his person and that of others, but rather takes as much interest in the sufferings of other individuals as he does in his own, and is not only exceedingly charitable but is actually prepared to sacrifice his own individual as soon as several others can be saved by doing so, then it clearly follows that such a human being, who recognizes himself, his innermost and true self in all beings, must also regard the endless suffering of all living things as his own, and take upon himself the pain of the whole world. No suffering is foreign to him anymore.

He clearly believes in open individualism, yet he is completely incapable then of setting aside his pessimism, and realizing that his idea of having children making you somehow a participant in the metaphysical suffering of the world and thus less than perfect doesnt make sense, due to the fact that the will only ever manifests itself as representation to living beings, and doesnt exist in some perfect undisturbed state outside of that in any meaningful sense circa antifrustrationism.

[Anonymous No.23110705]

>>23096132
Antinatalism is fundamentally rooted in self-hatred. It assumes that if you bring life into this world, it will experience more misery than joy and would not have consented to living if it could have. In other terms, it's founded on a view that life is worthless, which must arise from one viewing their own life as worthless. If they saw their life as having worth or bringing joy, then they would not be antinatalists.

Antinatalists can only justify their case if they kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.23110722]

>>23110705
Don't narcissistic anti-natalists exist?

[Anonymous No.23110730]

>>23096132
An antinatalist can be defeated like this: We should prevent "suffering"-But why?

[Anonymous No.23110741]

>>23110705
>Joy is... LE GOOD
>Suffering is... LE BAD
Antinatalism says that both are bad but joy is worse.

[Anonymous No.23110822]

>>23110741
More proof that antinatalism is retarded

[Anonymous No.23110903]

>>23102025
>antinatalist derisively calling someone a humanist

[Anonymous No.23110917]

>>23106631
Moral nihilism means that "facts" are not any more normatively binding than "cope".

[Anonymous No.23110920]

>>23097372
rahula became a monk later in his life under his father

[Anonymous No.23110948]

>>23096499
They take on the particular shade of reasoning that ending a life causes great harm not just to the one murdered but all who know and rely on him, generating more pain than liberation from such. Nothing short of nuclear holocaust would put an end to suffering, but since they regard emotions as little more than quantifiable units populating some grand equation with unknown variables—such as the conceded possibility of an afterlife or happy gene—they are adverse to anything beyond writing a few essays, pursuing legal hedonism, and annoying those around them. 'Tis pseudo intellectual countercultural.

[Anonymous No.23111063]

>>23110822
Cope

[Anonymous No.23111074]

>>23110948
>Nothing short of nuclear holocaust would put an end to suffering
Wrong

[Anonymous No.23111100]

>>23110684
>his idea of having children making you somehow a participant in the metaphysical suffering of the world
Source? His arguments for not having children are completely different. I don't ever remember reading this specific version.
>due to the fact that the will only ever manifests itself as representation to living beings, and doesnt exist in some perfect undisturbed state outside of that in any meaningful sense circa antifrustrationism
This is not even Schopenhauer's philosophy. According him, the will exists outside of "living beings" or consciousness,

[Anonymous No.23111117]

You do not, simple as.

[Anonymous No.23111154]

>>23097937
You are a fucking moron, i bet you are some dumbass redneck piece of shit raised by his equally retarded father. You absolutely reek of moralizing. Homo Sapiens reproduces because the needs of the physical body need to be met. Our bodies are a reflection of the enviroment in which we evolved. The universe does not tell us what to do, nor does it tell us that what we do is supposed to have any purpose. You are simply clinging onto this idea because it gives you a feeling of comfort and safety, a small island in an ocean of things you do not understand. I am not the other anon by the way, you just made me post for the first time in like 2 years to let you know how much of a retard you are being. Read a book and grow up.

[Anonymous No.23111486]

>>23111100
Yeah I know, but theres no good reason he gives for that to be a meaningful statement, saying a rock is a manifestation of the will to live, as a ceaseless striving towards existence doesnt mean much when that object has no meaning outside of it being a representation to a subject, the only way the will to live has any meaningful existence thus is through its manifestation in conscious subjects that can observe the rest of existence through representation, meaning that the will in all sense of the world only exists meaningfully through conscious subjects and not through objects like rocks and stuff.

I am quoting someone else on this heres the quote
>Schopenhauer advanced a theory of metaphysical suffering: the idea that earthly existence (the world as Representation) is by definition an existence of suffering. It is a consequence of his metaphysics of the Will - the fundamental unity of the universe is disturbed by the fissure caused by subject and object. This disturbance in the Will's unity is felt by us (and all living creatures) as a profound suffering, baked into the very idea of worldly existence itself. Creating a new subject (giving birth to another human being) therefore makes you an accomplice in this process of metaphysical suffering. Therefore, having children is morally (even spiritually or metaphysically!) wrong. Anoter argument is Schopenhauer's highest ethical recommendation: the life of the ascetic. Voluntary chastity is the first step to attaining this ideal. Obviously, you can't have children if you're chaste. By having children, you become ethically "less than perfect" (in the eyes of Schopenhauer) by default.

[Anonymous No.23111692]

>>23102656
>>The idea that all life has no purpose at all is also subjective.
>Lmao no
No, he's right, purpose itself is subjective, why the fuck is "purpose" it makes no sense, why the fuck would anyone need a purpose, even if there is a "purpose" for everything why should anyone even bother looking for it or even thinking about it?

"Life has no meaning" and "life has no purpose" are empty statements that make no sense.

[Anonymous No.23111711]

>>23110741
So no one believe in anti natalism because everybody in this world is trying to live the longest they can and feel as much joy as they can.

[Anonymous No.23111800]

>>23111711
Then why do people rope?

[Anonymous No.23111856]

>>23097350
>>23099308
>>23100018
>>23100155
>>23100289
>>23101988
>>23110741
>LE LE LE
Cringe 2012 redditor. Leave your landlord's basement and take a shower while you're at it.

[Anonymous No.23111931]

>>23111856
Redditor detected

[Anonymous No.23111971]

>>23111692
Everyone seems to have the need to cope with some purpose. Why doesn't the purpose make sense? Things have a purpose, the purpose of the knife is to cut. Your mom's being fucked by me, the Jew's stealing and your purpose is to be a bitch. The point is that ultimately there is no purpose. There is no reason for our existence.

[Anonymous No.23112028]

>>23111971
>Why doesn't the purpose make sense?
Because life is nothing something that have a purpose, not everything has a purpose

Like remember when all those guys fucked your ass? It's because you are a homosexual and and a slut, that's just who you are there is no purpose, you were born this way, God or whatever didn't gave you the purpose to be like that.

[Anonymous No.23112065]

>>23111971
>There is no reason for our existence.
Ok and...? Ins't that another reason to enjoy life? You don't owe anyone anything, you can just be happy. Life is not a job, life is not a mission, you find jobs and missions by yourself through life, if life had a purpose you wouldn't have the freedom to do whatever you wanted because anything but the purpose would be a waste of time.

[Anonymous No.23112070]

>>23111800
Several reasons. Some are crazy, others already are dying.

[Anonymous No.23112114]

>>23111971
Purpose is a social construct, the need for a purpose is also a social construct, an object does not have a purpose we make up a purpose for it. There is no purpose because nothing has a purpose because purpose does not exist. Do you get it now? It's absolutely irrelevant, you are seeing the universe not as an atheist but as someone who feels like God is dead, you are dealing with a post-faith trauma. That's emotional rather than rational, you need to overcome the death of your faith and fully embrace atheism or go back to your religion.

[Anonymous No.23112133]

>>23112028
>>23112065
>>23112114
>Someone says that life has no purpose.
>Instantly some retards lose their minds
Every fucking time

[Anonymous No.23112149]

>>23112065
Enjoy life is gay. Only women think like that
>>23112114
>An object does not have a purpose we make up a purpose for it. There is no purpose because nothing has a purpose because purpose does not exist.
This is exactly what the sub especies aeternitatis perspective says

[Anonymous No.23112154]

>>23110948
>Nothing short of nuclear holocaust would put an end to suffering
But that would make every single life on earth end with a tragic ending full of fear and despair rather than most people living the way they want and dying happy.

[Anonymous No.23112169]

>>23110948
>>23112154
Something that I don't get about this kind of anti natalism is... what if Aliens exist? What if life evolving and developing new civilizations is something that will happen thousands of times across the universe till the end of time?

Statistically humans being the only civilization that ever existed or will ever exist is nearly impossible, how do you solve that? Just nuking earth will make no difference in the long run.

[Anonymous No.23112185]

>>23097220
So why exactly is suffering bad?

[Anonymous No.23112212]

>>23112185
I don't know. For me only physical pain is bad. Physical pain (especially extreme physical pain) is intersubjectively bad. It feels terrible for the vast majority.

[Anonymous No.23112219]

>>23112154
>But that would make every single life on earth end with a tragic ending full of fear and despair rather than most people living the way they want and dying happy.
It wouldn't matter. Eons have already suffered before, so that the last ones don't suffer is not a justification for not doing it.

[Anonymous No.23112635]

>>23112185
>bad
things can only be desirable or undesirable. "good" and "bad" are meaningless abstractions.

[Anonymous No.23112670]

>>23112219
so what about >>23112169
unless you can destroy the entire universe anti natalism is completely pointless, you will not end life, you will not even make any kind of difference even if you eradicate mankind, statistically life will inevitably develop and evolve somewhere else for billions of years and so will alien civilizations

[Anonymous No.23112850]

>>23112670
I think it would depend if they were like us in terms of suffering, if their life has a negative value similar to ours. I would say that even if there were aliens like us out there, exterminating us would result in fewer victims anyway. I also doubt that we will be able to survive a contact because our species is apparently very destructive/self-destructive.

[Anonymous No.23112915]

>>23112850
>exterminating us would result in fewer victims anyway.
at this scale killing earth will make as much difference to life as a whole as individual suicide, every study seems to point statistically alien life and civilizations will exist till the death of the stars, life got 100 trillion years and an entire universe to begin evolve and die out in a never ending cycle, it's like trying to stop ocean waves

and by destroying humans you erase anti natalism from history, aliens will never know about it

[Anonymous No.23113007]

>>23112915
and that does not even include the multiverse hypothesis, which would mean INFINITE AND ETERNAL LIFE

[Anonymous No.23113205]

>clone yourself
>from your memories and personality you know you would want to be created if you were a clone
done, "consensus" solved, trying to stop a person from doin that would be immoral by their own logic

[Anonymous No.23113480]

>>23096132
It's self refuting as other anons have pointed out.
The very driving force or purpose for it already presupposes or involves God in the equation.
But when you concede God, antinatalism is false again.

[Anonymous No.23113943]

>>23112915
And what if aliens don't feel pain and are different from us. Or if they think our meat tastes good and put us in slaughterhouses. Nah, aliens don't matter I guess