>2013 >not being an antinatalist Cruel motherfuckers.

File: 11 KB, 224x263, Schopenhaeur = Sadness.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:10:14 2013 No.4352610 [DELETED]

>2013
>not being an antinatalist

Cruel motherfuckers.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:14:14 2013 No.4352617 >>4352610 Wahhh, life's too hard for me and I'm scared of death and humans ruin everything so we should cease all procreation. I wonder if there are any antinatalists who aren't mentally ill. Probably not.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:17:14 2013 No.4352623 File: 10 KB, 224x263, Schopenhaeur = Sadness 2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4352617 >not a single rational argument I forgive you.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:18:14 2013 No.4352628

>>4352623
He's right, though. Most antinatalists do seem to have some sort of mental illness. And their views are driven by the assumption that everyone else can't deal with life's hardships. It's a position that stems from depression and feelings of alienation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:20:14 2013 No.4352630 >>4352610 Antinatalists ought to read a little Nietzsche to affirm their lives.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:22:15 2013 No.4352632 as a antinatalist, is it not hypocrisy to talk about human race or humanity

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:22:15 2013 No.4352633 >>4352623 >antinatalism >rational do you even listen to urself fuccboi?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:23:15 2013 No.4352635 >implying I won't raise my kids properly and spare them from any suffering They won't leave the house.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:24:15 2013 No.4352637 >>4352633 >implying antinatalism is irrational Have you looked outside lately? We're kind of destroying the planet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:24:15 2013 No.4352638 >>4352635 Dogtooth 2

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:27:15 2013 No.4352642
File: 67 KB, 600x573, 1383274966902.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4352633
>bringing a superfluous being into existence only so they can suffer, cause suffering and finally die in one of many thousands of painful and horrifying ways
>rational

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:28:15 2013 No.4352643 >>4352633 antinatalism IS rational - that's its one deficit: it's the culmination of millenia of thinking that through reason and logic we can derive ethics. In reality we can't, ethics only comes descriptively from our own will.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:29:14 2013 No.4352645 >>4352637 Some people are currently destroying the planet, so all humans should stop having kids. Sound argument.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:29:14 2013 No.4352646

>>4352637
you think using up fossil fuels is "destroying the planet"? you think global warming is a thing, and not just a regular variation in global temperature that happens every few thousand years? Nature always wins in the end, and when we've used up all the resources on offer humanity will be the one that's destroyed. Even if all trees on planet Earth disappeared right this second, there would still be enough oxygen to supply the entire population for at least another 5000 years. we're not "destroying the planet".

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:29:14 2013 No.4352647 >>4352637 Why not advocate for radical environmentalism instead then? Both of these options are definitely tragic positions that will never be taken up to the point of effectiveness - but at least going green seems positive to most people.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:31:14 2013 No.4352648 >>4352646 what is "nuclear radiation and plastic"

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:34:14 2013 No.4352657

>>4352648
abloo bloo bloo, some small spots on the planet are being filled with waste plastic. Do you know how big the earth actually is? Enough to support our current population twice over, provided we had food farms in space or something. landfills and the like are not and never will be a danger to the overall health of the planet. Same thing with your nuclear radiation

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:36:14 2013 No.4352660 >>4352648 we need future scientists to figure out how to deal with those problems

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:38:49 2013 No.4352666 >>4352637 The planet is not sentient

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:45:49 2013 No.4352679

>>4352610
More like irresponsible. Cruelty is ok if you're just not too stupid.

>>4352617
>Wahhh, life's too hard for me
It's not, living in a society made by stupid people for stupid people is easy. Living in luxury isn't, but life on this occidental society is easier than ever, anyway life being easy/difficult isn't a problem to me, I'm pretty confident in my ability to overcome difficulties.
>and I'm scared of death
lol no
>and humans ruin everything
Not "humans", more like modern humans. But yeah, you only need not to be fucking blind to see it.
>so we should cease all procreation
"We"? I couldn't give less fucks about what people that's not me do. I sure as fuck don't want to participate on this stupid species perpetuation.
>I wonder if there are any antinatalists who aren't mentally ill. Probably not.
How many antinatalists do you know? Probably zero.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:45:49 2013 No.4352680 File: 30 KB, 529x486, spicy.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >mom won't buy me PS4 >I'll never bring children into this cruel world full of suffering

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:46:49 2013 No.4352683 >>4352630 I affirm my life better than you probably ever will. What I don't want to affirm is YOUR life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:47:48 2013 No.4352684 >>4352679 >I sure as fuck don't want to participate on this stupid species perpetuation so then why the fuck haven't you killed yourself yet? fucking pussy

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:48:48 2013 No.4352689

>>4352680
Why are you this mad at people not wanting to perpetuate your shitty species? Look at you, look at this place, look at how humans behave. No, I don't like it, I don't like you. I don't want to bear something that can become a shitty being like you.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:49:48 2013 No.4352692 >>4352689 why not kill yourself though

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:50:48 2013 No.4352693 >>4352689 You don't like it because you are going through teenage angst, we've all been there man. Soon your puberty cycle will work itself out and you will see how amazing it is to be a human.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:50:48 2013 No.4352694 >>4352680 Argumentum ad Edgium.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:50:48 2013 No.4352697

>>4352684
>so then why the fuck haven't you killed yourself yet? fucking pussy
Wow, you sure have no idea what you're talking about. Why should I kill myself? I am pretty happy with myself, it's you and people like you what makes me think this species isn't worth it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:52:48 2013 No.4352704 >>4352697 But you know nothing about him. You literally know nothing about him.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:53:48 2013 No.4352705

>>4352693
You don't get it. Being me is amazing. But being like most of you isn't. If I have a child and he starts being like most of the people I see on the streets I will never be able to forgive myself. Nowadays people suck. I'm ok with myself, I am what I want, but we live on stupid times, I just don't want to perpetuate this shit.
>>4352692
lrn2read
Why should I?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:53:48 2013 No.4352707 >>4352697 >>4352693 But I am enjoying life. I thought you didn't want to bring more humans into the world because it may suffer. Apparently your true reasoning is you don't want to risk having a child that may bother you. Who is the selfish one again?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:54:48 2013 No.4352709 >>4352697 your post reads like what an angsty adolescent would say in a YA novel

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:54:48 2013 No.4352710 >>4352704 I read his post. I know too much about him. I already know I don't like him at all.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 16:57:48 2013 No.4352716 >>4352710 I like you anon. You remind me of the angsty teenager I used to be. Some of those memories are fond, some not, but still an important part of my identity. Soon you will grow up, look back, and laugh, just as I am now.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:04:48 2013 No.4352734 >>4352707 >Not ruining your life with children >Selfish Hi family values.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:06:48 2013 No.4352739 who wants kids anyway? that's too much responsibility for me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:08:36 2013 No.4352748 >>4352744 > Doing the same every time you wank.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:08:48 2013 No.4352744 >>4352734 >Denying someone potential happiness >Not selfish

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:09:36 2013 No.4352750 >>4352739 >too much responsibility reproducing is the one thing all organisms are created to do. how does it feel to technically fail at life?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:10:36 2013 No.4352754 >>4352750 i really don't mind it.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:10:36 2013 No.4352755 >>4352750 >Created >Purpose >Fail Philosophy101 should indicate why you're trolling.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:10:36 2013 No.4352756

I do not think it makes much of a difference, considering rationally, the infinite expanse of ''time'' and the occilation of the universe, even ignoring the possibility of ''eternal recurrance'', whether or not one were to engage in procreation. If you are considering it from a sociological perspective, it goes without saying that you are a fool.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:10:36 2013 No.4352758 >>4352748 I'm not the one claiming not to be selfish

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:11:35 2013 No.4352762

>>4352646
>you think global warming is a thing, and not just a regular variation in global temperature that happens every few thousand years?
This is proven incorrect and any with any background in science is aware of this. Yes, there are fluctuations; No, are current situation is not based solely on that fluctuation, CO2 levels are high than they've ever been during the peaks of those past fluctuations. Why not go read peer-reviewed journals instead of just parroting what you heard in some youtube video?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:13:05 2013 No.4352772 >>4352758 saying ">not selfish" isn't exactly a stringent argument of why individuals should be selfish for not ruining their life by reproducing.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:22:05 2013 No.4352799 >>4352772 The only thing I said was that the person who made the post was wrong in thinking he wasn't selfish.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:33:05 2013 No.4352829

>>4352707
My only argument is that people nowadays suck. I don't want to have a child because there's high probabilities of him becoming one of the kind of people I don't like. Anyway, I don't get what's so great about having a child. Selfish? Of course I am, retard.
>>4352709
Are you trying to make me feel bad about myself because you don't like my opinion? You guys sure are too mature for me, it's a shame there isn't more people like you in the world, I should reproduce as much as I can.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:35:08 2013 No.4352834 >>4352716 I can't say I like you, you're trying too hard to sound condescending. People who lack subtlety are usually stupid. But well, I will take you calling me "angsty teenager" as something you think is bad, which I'll take as a compliment.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:36:07 2013 No.4352836 >>4352628 if you don't know the depths of human suffering you cannot empathize with them. why would you force someone to live through a life of pain?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:39:06 2013 No.4352844 >>4352693 having children is selfish

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:42:06 2013 No.4352847 >>4352744 >Ensuring someone experiences suffering >Not selfish

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:42:06 2013 No.4352849

>>4352834
I'm not insulting you or being condescending, I said pretty much the exact same bullshit when I was a teenager, so I know where you are coming from, and more importantly where you are going. Maybe if you took the advice of people like me who have gone through it you can snap out of it and become a better human being sooner.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:45:06 2013 No.4352853 >>4352849 why do you think experience rules out the idea of antinatalism?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:51:06 2013 No.4352860 >>4352610 Schope needed more pusssy or he wouldn't have thought life was so hard

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:53:07 2013 No.4352864

>>4352849
>better human being
Like you? No thanks Mr. spiritual guru, I'm ok as I am.
You know jack-shit about me. Your condescendence is pathetic so cut that shit. I don't want to stop being as I am, and specially not to become a wise-ass faggot who tries to help everyone to be a super-enlightened mature guy like you. People who know everything are disgusting.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:56:06 2013 No.4352873 >>4352860 He never said life was hard.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 17:58:06 2013 No.4352878 >>4352610 I'm an apanatalist. But I won't reproduce.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:00:06 2013 No.4352882 >>4352630 Nitch was fake. He tried to be life affirming, but his personal interaction and correspondence was crying about suicide and pain and wanting to be an epicurean but being too lonely and miserable.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:03:06 2013 No.4352891 >>4352860 shopdog had plenty pussy, plebeian.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:08:06 2013 No.4352906 >>4352864 Nice projection. I don't know much, but I have gotten past "society can't reject me, I reject society!" The sooner you grow out of it the better.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:17:06 2013 No.4352939 >>4352684 not wanting to have kids = not being happy with your life lol this is how normies think

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:19:06 2013 No.4352942 >>4352882 >>2013 >>judging authors work by their life smh

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:29:06 2013 No.4352987 >>4352942 I wasn't judging his work. It's great. Even as a person he's great. I love the Nitch dearly. But it's only honest to recognise what a pathetic shipheap he was. We owe it to him.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:32:06 2013 No.4352999
File: 34 KB, 99x360, ZhoushiTaijitu.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I find it weird that antinatalism say that non-existence is better than existence. To me, it is the same as to think non-existence is worse than existence. Fear of death, fear of life.

Life is trouble. Life is suffering. But it is also joy and happiness. And I can't think of a thing that is good which is not accompanied by something that is bad. And I can't think of something that is bad that doesn't bring some sort of good into this world. In the balance of things, there is some sort of meta-suffering, a struggle to either balance those things out or to cling to what is good and not have what is bad. And this, I fear, is a form of leveling things down, to make it even.

But life is the odd one out. Of all there could be, this congregation of flesh is standing and laughing and crying. Hence why life is trouble. But while some strive for utopias or ways to make it solely good, we are frustrated by the necessary bad that comes along. Some have noticed this and hence the solution: if balance is the key, not-life is the most balanced of them all, for there is nothing.

But this solution to me is weird. For there is nothing inherently wrong with continuous struggle and we should not be afraid of it. To accept life, not as something that could be just good, neither neutral, but as a constant swing. And if balance is the key, it is useless to expect extreme balance, see? To think that the even non-life is better than the odd swings of life... It doesn't sit with me.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:40:07 2013 No.4353031

>>4352999
but you literally do not have to go through these swings if you don't exist.

i think that the key point about anti-natalism is that we bring other human beings into this world out of purely selfish reasons. it's just not a reasonable thing to say "i want to have a child so that it might experience the joys of living, even if it entails the bad". even if life were total bliss, it would not be a sensible thing to say.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:42:07 2013 No.4353039 >>4352906 >Nice projection Next time learn what this means before teaching me about life, sensei.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:44:26 2013 No.4353051

>>4353031
>but you literally do not have to go through these swings if you don't exist.
That's my point. There is nothing wrong with having these swings.

And I don't see how having kids is selfish, neither what's wrong with the way of thinking you say it's unreasonable.

Even if life were a total bliss? What's your point, then?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 18:54:25 2013 No.4353082 >>4353051 for what reason does one have children? it's obviously not to make the children happy, they don't exist yet. it must be to make you happy. simple as that.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:05:12 2013 No.4353114 I've never heard an argument against antinatalism that wasn't "waahhh my life does have meaning! u hurt my feelings"

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:08:11 2013 No.4353120 >>4353114 did you read the thread?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:13:11 2013 No.4353138 >>4353114 This is because it's not a matter of wining a debate, it's just a matter of preference. But this world is full of retards who believe anyone with different preferences is just wrong.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:14:11 2013 No.4353144

>>4353082
Not to make the children happy, but to bring them to life. Which is not necessarily a naive belief that the kid is going to be happy, but that the child will experience those swings.

And even if it is the case to have kids to make oneself happy, one could argue there are many ways in which this is not exactly selfish. Children are not "our" children. They are on their own and parents must learn to support that and must learn that one does not have a kid for one's entertainment, but like with every creation, it is about giving life to where there is none yet. There is pleasure in that.

And one cannot argue that having the children is necessarily an evil thing for disrespecting the choice of the non-being, because, of course, there is no option, no position for that non-being to take on the matter. If later on one "regrets" being alive, then that's part of the struggle that all life is about, one that is not exactly a bad thing on its own.

To me, the whole argument is about accepting or rejecting life and there is no difference to this discussion to the matter of suicide, for example. The twist is that the suicidal is already alive and therefore entangled in this wheel of good and bad things. But instead of arguing in favour of life, in both cases, for its good things, I'm arguing in favour of accepting the struggles of life. Not that you must, but that you can. In suicide, it's ones choice. In anti-natalism, it is not depriving one of choice, for "it" isn't yet.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:15:11 2013 No.4353150 >>4353114 You didn't read the thread. Also >I've never heard an argument pro antinatalism that wasn't "waahhh my life does not have meaning! u hurt my feelings"

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:16:11 2013 No.4353152 File: 110 KB, 381x448, 1381033364559.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4353082 pretty immature read more and grow up

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:31:11 2013 No.4353190

>>4352679
>How many antinatalists do you know? Probably zero.

I only know of that Gary fellow from youtube (inmendham) and David Benatar, who wrote Better Never to Have Been. The former is absolutely insane and the latter just poses the former's views (those of a depressed, cynical, angry, alienated man) more eloquently. They think that because life is an imposition, it's wrong to have kids. They think that those in favor of life are merely unrealistic optimists. I think what's really going on is that they're focusing so much on human failures and life's hardships that their view of reality becomes distorted and almost everyone by contrast would seem optimistic.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:32:11 2013 No.4353192

>>4353144
i never said that having children was evil. to the society involved. it's a very beneficial thing to the society involved, actually. we need to have lots of children now so that we can have a tax base for supporting those who already exist once they retire. capitalism does best when population grows.

but these hang on the benefits of those already in existence. you say that we have children to bring them to life? what kind of circular reasoning is that? there is nothing that you can offer a thing which does not exist, not happiness, not wealth, not 'swings', which it cannot do without.

the discussion is nothing like the discussion of suicide. it's not a question of accepting or rejecting life because that is a question which requires an existence to predicate itself on.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:37:28 2013 No.4353202 Suffering is part of life and suffering =/= bad

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:42:29 2013 No.4353213 >>4353202 suffering is not the reason given for antinatalism. read the thread.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:43:28 2013 No.4353216

>>4353192
To be honest, "evil" was just a shorter word I used because otherwise my post was going to be too long. I meant "undesirable".

I'm not advocating the idea of having children. I'm pointing out exactly at that circular reason which is also involved in antinatalism. Why shouldn't we bring things to life? Because it will suffer? In other words, should we not bring things to life because... It is going to be alive? There is nothing that you can spare or offer to a thing which does not exist. Both ideas are useless if taken to normative prescriptive terms. "One must have children" or "one should not have children".

And it is similar to suicide in that everyone who discusses in favour or against antinatalism is, indeed, alive to begin with. There is something about accepting and rejecting life, if not of one's own life, to the life that is not yet. Answer me this: why isn't the antinatalist also a suicidal? It seems only logical to me.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 19:55:28 2013 No.4353251 File: 18 KB, 319x397, coneheads.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4352617 >try to make reductio ad absurdum >argument still works

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:03:28 2013 No.4353269
File: 11 KB, 215x222, Gold baby.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

I saw this video a few months back, and I pretty much agree with everything these two say and they answer some of the often asked questions:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4d69BibYYA&hd=1

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:05:28 2013 No.4353273

>>4353216
>why isn't the antinatalist also a suicidal? It seems only logical to me.
this is a clear indication that you do not understand the position of antinatalism. schopenhauer probably does a better job of articulating than i do.

bringing a thing to life necessitates the question of whether or not something should be brought to life. there is no question if the passive approach is taken. there is nothing that you can spare a thing which does not exist, but that is not a reason to cause it to exist. there is no circularity in my claim because its fulfillment does not bring that thing into a position where its ontology can be considered. yours does!

"it doesn't NOT want to exist, let's have it exist!" there's simply no rationality here. it's not a question of suffering. as i've said, life might be pure bliss but that is still not justification for bringing life to that which does not have it.

once a thing has life then the question changes entirely, that is the critical thing which completely differentiates this discussion from suicide.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:09:28 2013 No.4353284 >>4353269 Why am I not at all surprised that the faces of antinatalism look and dress like these people?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:12:28 2013 No.4353299 >>4353284 stealth straw man

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:14:28 2013 No.4353304 File: 81 KB, 759x555, oh yeah.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4353284 >I'll attack their appearance because I can't refute the thoughts!

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:17:28 2013 No.4353309 >>4353269 reverse trolling? on my /lit/?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:19:28 2013 No.4353311 >Utilitarianism "Only great pain is the ultimate liberator of the spirit"

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:19:28 2013 No.4353312

>>4353299
>>4353304
It's a legitimate position. If you make the choice to dress in that way you know "breeders" will treat you negatively. Doesn't excuse the "breeders," but you know what you are getting into. That mindset let's me know they are in the "society can't reject me, I reject society" camp and thus their opinion is worthless to me. I'm not judging them, just dismissing them.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:22:29 2013 No.4353317 File: 48 KB, 469x463, yfw.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4353311 >spirit

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:23:29 2013 No.4353318 >>4353312 you misunderstand. 'stealth straw man' was directed at the poster of the video. that pair are probably the furthest from an accurate representation of anti-natalism as you can be, and the op knew it.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:24:28 2013 No.4353324

>>4353299
>>4353304
You guys have missed the point. They're dressed as your stereotypical outcasts, those who live on the fringes of society. Why might these kinds of people be antinatalists? Obviously, I'm making fairly baseless assumptions about their lives and personalities, but I don't think it's any coincidence that those who argue against procreation tend to *seem* as though they're alienated. I didn't mean to attack their appearances, though. I have nothing against nonconformity.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:32:29 2013 No.4353339 >>4353318 How did I miss that? Too subtle for me, I guess.

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:41:28 2013 No.4353353

>>4353339
Antinatalist are hypocrites arguing other humans should not exist while they themselves continue to exist.

Its like they played soccer, decided it was too dangerous and full of sufferring, so they want to prevent other ppl from playing it.....yet they play it everyday llol so selfish lol

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:42:28 2013 No.4353357 >>4353353 >muh tu quoque

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:47:28 2013 No.4353364

>>4353273
I did not read Schopenhauer and only skimmed through antinatalist ideas in the past, so I'm guilty as charged. I was working only on the premise of the OP, that we are "cruel motherfuckers" if we ought to think otherwise. Why cruel? I assumed suffering to be OP's point from there.

What I'm trying to understand here is that, if there is no reason to bring stuff to life, then how do we jump from this lack of reason into having a reason not to bring life. That is, if that's the case, then why doesn't one hold an apathetic neutral position towards it and where does the anti- in antinatalism comes from? Is it undesirable to have things in a place in which it can be ontologically considered?

Also, from that point on, isn't it so that any reason is enough reason to make new life? That, rationaly there might be no argument in favour of new births, but a mere desire to do so, even if selfish can justify the act of having children. That would be so, unless there is a reason to counterpoint it, a reason not to have children. And I still don't see that.

Btw, I'm enjoying this discussion.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 20:52:28 2013 No.4353371 Any one got some good anti-natialist reading list? Schopenhauer and Benatar come to mind, any others translated into English?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:07:28 2013 No.4353406

>>4353364
>if there is no reason to bring stuff to life

there is a reason but it is not for the sake of the child to be born. it is for the sake of the society that it will work for and the parents whom it will bring a sense of fulfillment. there ARE reasons to have children, but they are ultimately selfish in the most unconnotated sense of the word

it is not undesirable to have things in a place where their ontology can be considered but if that consideration is the very thing which grants it an ontology then you can see why there is really no logic to be had here.

natalism is a question which begets its own discussion and begets its own opposition, because it is the question of granting existence. there is no 'position' of antinatalism, it is simply the passive shadow of an active force, which is why it's 'anti-'

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:10:28 2013 No.4353415 if you are an antinatalist then you believe life is not worth living and you should kill yourself

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:18:29 2013 No.4353440 >>4353415 Not so, friend.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:18:29 2013 No.4353441 >>4353415 the normie fears what it does not understand

>>	R !!wxBJZk1b45E Mon Dec 9 21:19:28 2013 No.4353448 >>4352633 >fuccboi >/lit/

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:22:28 2013 No.4353457 >>4353415 Kill yourself wouldn't stop procreation, would it? Someone would just replace you with another person via procreation.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:23:28 2013 No.4353464 >>4353457 killing yourself*

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:24:28 2013 No.4353465 >>4353364 i am saddened by these discussions because if i cannot justify natalism then i cannot justify creating an artificial intelligence. and the thing that really kills me is that i'd still do it if i had the chance.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:25:28 2013 No.4353469 >>4353457 Kill yourself is the most rational action an antinat would do because of his view in life. He thinks its not worth living for anyone else, except his own life...go figure...his life is the magical one that is worth living

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:26:28 2013 No.4353477 >>4353469 According to broken antinat logic ppl should continue to have kids so that future generations will figure out a way to stop all procreation lol...

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 21:30:28 2013 No.4353493 >>4353469 >>4353477 my god some people are just pathologically bereft of subtlety, aren't they

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 22:05:53 2013 No.4353595 >>4352610 CRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAWLLLLLING IN MY SKIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIn

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 22:11:54 2013 No.4353620 anti-natalism might be argued to imply that removing someone from existence entirely is a justifiable act. is this a reasonable position?

Anonymous Mon Dec 9 22:16:10 2013 No.4353640

>>4352610
Anti-Natalists are irrelevant, because of natural selection.
If you are genetically predisposed not to enjoy things, by all means, end your own life, your lineage, whatever you like. Allow those who enjoy life to do what we enjoy. What conflict is there?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 9 22:28:12 2013 No.4353689 when the fuck are people going to learn to read the thread before posting their inane and misguided opinions this is /lit/ for fuck's sake... oh who am i kidding

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 13:50:01 2013 No.4355574 File: 548 KB, 255x184, 1378322003463.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Arguments in favour of antinatalism: >The works of Arthur Schopenhaeur. Arguments against antinatalism: >muh edgy lel u 2edgy4me XDDDD

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:07:19 2013 No.4355633 Watch this video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9lXcgJ6s1g >>4355574 Their feelings are hurt so they just post ad hominem and other fallacies.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:31:35 2013 No.4355714 >>4355633 this is still by and large a gross mischaracterization of antinatalism... the bit about leaving the unborn in the 'peace' of non-existence was somewhat resonant, but other than that it's bollocks.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:41:34 2013 No.4355733

>this thread

You're all faggots.
I wonder if you claps ever read any philosophical texts about the matter or you're just scrubbing opinions for the sake of it, thus elevating your sense of entitlement your and self-recreation of persona.

Schopy was right.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 14:50:42 2013 No.4355754

This is the most retarded position in all of philosophy. How can you be against continuing life, the greatest thing in the known universe?

Don't give me scarcity bullshit. We've always made due to feed most people enough.

Don't give me that life is suffering Buddhist bullshit. Life is many things in addition to suffering.

I really don't see how you can go that extra step beyond Nihilism. Not only does life have no meaning, it should be squelched out of existence as well? For what purpose?

Stop being such a defeated pussy. Loveland perfect for anyone. In fact, it gets hard for everyone at some point. That's no reason to give up the struggle. Life is the only miracle in the universe that matters. Without life, all of existence is an empty sandbox.

Now, if you want to argue against the necessity of death, you might be on to something, though I'd disagree with that as well. But to go against the cycle of creating new life is retarded or deliberately contrarian. It's like trying to be a punk rock academic.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 15:32:24 2013 No.4355872

>>4355754
>This is the most retarded position in all of philosophy.
Oh, look out, everybody, we're dealing with a genius here.
>How can you be against continuing life, the greatest thing in the known universe?
Life is ok. It's the problem is the people who populate the earth. Anyway, I'd like to hear what's your justification to say it's "the greatest thing in the known universe".
>Don't give me scarcity bullshit. We've always made due to feed most people enough.
Yeah because the third world isn't MOST of the world. Ignorant retard...
>Don't give me that life is suffering Buddhist bullshit. Life is many things in addition to suffering.
Now Buddhism is bullshit too? Yeah, you're obviously a genius. The problem isn't life, it's humanity, for example ignorant and stupid people like you.
>I really don't see how you can go that extra step beyond Nihilism. Not only does life have no meaning, it should be squelched out of existence as well? For what purpose?
Ok, ok, I get that you don't know what you're talking about.
>Stop being such a defeated pussy. Loveland perfect for anyone. In fact, it gets hard for everyone at some point. That's no reason to give up the struggle.
Nobody talks about being defeated, retard. it's about this civilization and realizing it's decadent and beyond solution. Why continue something that's clearly failing. There's a lot of more interesting species that could populate the world if humanity wasn't monopolizing resources, destroying nature and extinguishing species for the sake of it
>Life is the only miracle in the universe that matters.
Oh wow, you know a lot about the universe, why don't you tell me more about it?
Also, miracle? Don't make me laugh... Learn science first and learn what life is. it's not a miracle you ignorant and retarded fucker. Go spout your cheap pseudo-spirituallity somewhere with stupid enough people to take it seriously.
>Without life, all of existence is an empty sandbox.
Bullshit. We still don't know shit about the universe. Life is but a little (yet the most complex we know) phenomena. The ignorance and stupidity emanating from this sentence is totally overwhelming.
>Now, if you want to argue against the necessity of death, you might be on to something,
Yeah, it would be ok if all living being continued existing forever occupying all the space on the earth and extinguishing all the resources. It would be fun as hell.
>But to go against the cycle of creating new life is retarded or deliberately contrarian. It's like trying to be a punk rock academic.
There's only one cycle and it's the cycle of life AND death. It's just a cycle of transformation. And humanity should just continue with this cycle and let place to another different thing, so far the world has had enough.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 15:47:24 2013 No.4355915

>>4355872
Why would I cease my own existence for the sake of other "interesting species"?

Why would I end human society when it's literally the only thing in the world that actually matters to me.

Nature means nothing to me besides how it can provide a world with which human beings can continue creating. Call me immoral but I don't care.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:06:24 2013 No.4355959 >>4352679 >>4352617 served :^)

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:09:24 2013 No.4355969

>>4352637
The average standard of life is higher than at any time in history, all the technology and advancement of medicine makes our lives way more comfortable than ever. The world didn't become more brutal, though the perception of said brutality has increased due to development of mass media.

On the other hand bringing a person into existence can't be done with that persons consent because of obvious reasons. It may be perceived as a form of cruelty, since the sole act of living is directly connected to feeling pain. It is also connected with feeling happiness. We have no idea if there is any kind of beforelife and if it comes with joy or suffering. Keeping a person from being conceived and born may therefore also cause them to go through pain.

A person may make a conscious decision whether to continue his or her existence only while alive as far as we know.

Long story short: people should reproduce, antilatalism is stupid.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:47:27 2013 No.4356069

>>4355574
Arguments against antinatalism: Telling people that they should reproduce because your personal experience of life is lacking, while those very people mostly tend to enjoy being alive and see it as a precious gift, is a bit silly. Universalising your depression into a philosophical system isn't a good idea.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:51:26 2013 No.4356077 >>4356069 This post is just a wordier version of >muh edgy lel u 2edgy4me XDDDD

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:55:26 2013 No.4356091 >>4355915 >Why would I cease my own Stopped reading here. You have some really serious reading comprehension problems, son.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 16:59:26 2013 No.4356103 >>4356069 *shouldn't

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:01:27 2013 No.4356114 >>4356077 Nope. Antinatalism is not liking cake and saying that therefore nobody should eat it. It's a non sequitur

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:02:27 2013 No.4356117

>>4356069
I like being alive, yet I'm against the perpetuation of the human race, your argument is invalid.

>>4355969
You like this world because you are too conformist. I don't blame you, your adaptation of preferences just works too well. You're the kind of person the system needs.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:03:26 2013 No.4356121 >>4356117 Who are you against the perpetuation of the human race?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:05:26 2013 No.4356129

>>4356114
No, your post is a non sequitur. Antinatalism has more arguments than taste. Anyway, it's not a normative question. When you think something isn't desirable you don't feel the need to go telling everyone what should they do, but you know it's something you don't like and don't find morally acceptable to do.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:07:26 2013 No.4356137

>>4356121
Eh... you mean why? Because it's to late to fix this civilization. Capitalism works too well and we reached a point where nobody can do anything about it. This species hit a dead end where there's no way out if some external factor doesn't interfere. This civilization is decadent and must cease to exist.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:15:30 2013 No.4356159 One question: why not adopt kids? I mean, it's not as selfishly pleasing as having your own, but you aren't selfish like those edgy antinatalists, are you?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:15:30 2013 No.4356161
File: 11 KB, 425x319, Mandarin.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

How do you rationalize living at all as an anti-natalist?
If life is too cruel for children, surely it is too cruel for you as well?
It seems to be just a form of rationalization for shying away from permanent relationships to me.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:21:26 2013 No.4356179

>>4356161
>How do you rationalize living at all as an anti-natalist?
What does one thing to do with the other?
>If life is too cruel for children, surely it is too cruel for you as well?
Yes. It is for everyone.
>It seems to be just a form of rationalization for shying away from permanent relationships to me.
Did you know there's people in long relationships who don't have kids? Excuse me for evading the word 'permanent', it's too depressing to me (means: 1) relationships where the members are too desperate to break or 2) happy relationships where one of both members died).

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:23:26 2013 No.4356187

>>4356129
>Antinatalism has more arguments than taste.
Name some. I can't find any that points to anything but a rationalisation of personal dislike. Most people actually want to be alive. You rarely meet a person who blames his parents for casting him into existence.

>>4356137
I did. I'd say civilisation is doing pretty well. People are better off than in any other era before and there are good reasons to expect more improvement. Sure, it's far from perfect, but it's closer to perfect than ever before by most standards.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:25:26 2013 No.4356190

>>4356179
>What does one thing to do with the other?
The proposition that life is too cruel for another seems marred by your own unwilligness to follow this line of thought to its, that is to say your, logical end.
>Did you know there's people in long relationships who don't have kids?
Very well, permanent relationships that can't be broken off without any real consequence in the course of a couple of a couple of minutes. Ones involving an ounce of responsibility beyond the financial you might say.
>Excuse me for evading the word 'permanent'
Not at all. I find the aversion to the term rather telling.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:32:27 2013 No.4356215

>>4356187
>by most standards.
Not mine, obviously.

>>4356187
Well this thread is plagued with them. Some written by me. I'm not gonna repeat myself. The only point of reproducing is to satisfy a selfish biological desire. it's ok when you like the conditions, but not when you don't. I don't like this historical moment. Maybe it's harder to starve to death right here on the rich countries, but most people are driven by superficial shit like consumerism and their own fears and paranoia. I wouldn't like to create a human who fits in a civilization like this one, and one who doesn't fit will have it tough. Anyway, I don't feel the need to perpetuate my DNA. It's just pointless. This boring species will keep its stupid way, but at least I will die proud of not having contributed to it.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:35:26 2013 No.4356227

>>4356190
>The proposition that life is too cruel for another
Life is cruel in general. Once you are here, dying is very unpleasant. So you keep on living as long as it's bearable. Personally I don't care that much about cruelty, but I don't think being born is an intrinsically good thing (specially here and now).
>Ones involving an ounce of responsibility beyond the financial you might say.
Yes, the one that won't affect negatively another human being when they wreck.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:39:26 2013 No.4356241 >>4356190 I see antinats as fat people picketing McDonalds preventing others from entering while they gorge themselves on burgers all day... Apparently life is too awful for everyone except the antinatalist.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:40:31 2013 No.4356246

>>4356215
>The only point of reproducing is to satisfy a selfish biological desire.
Not if you belief life is an intrinsically good thing. Like most people do subconsciously.
It is not fear of pain that drives people to live, even someone hopped up on opiates who can't feel a thing will strive toward life.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:50:29 2013 No.4356276

>>4356215
>Not mine, obviously.
Obviously. But why would you want universal application of it? It's basically a huge 'stop liking what I don't like'.

>The only point of reproducing is to satisfy a selfish biological desire
This can be said of all acts.

>it's ok when you like the conditions, but not when you don't.
Most people like being alive, so the chance that a hypothetical child will as well is greater than the opposite.

>I don't like this historical moment. Maybe it's harder to starve to death right here on the rich countries, but most people are driven by superficial shit like consumerism and their own fears and paranoia.
I don't know any people like that. Sure, they care about nice stuff, but who doesn't? Most people care more about their friends and family and having nice experiences. I don't know anyone who puts money first. You're basing your judgement of humanity on a bad caricature of it. As far as not wanting to have a child yourself, that's fine of course and I don't want to myself either. I just don't see why I would want to force that choice on everyone, especially when most of them agree that life is very much worth it.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:52:32 2013 No.4356284

>>4356246
>Not if you belief life is an intrinsically good thing.
Intrinsically good things... I don't know if this exists. I'm not such a believer, I'm too rational.
>Like most people do subconsciously.
Yeah, most people are wrong about a lot of stuff all the time.
>It is not fear of pain that drives people to live, even someone hopped up on opiates who can't feel a thing will strive toward life.
Why don't you please start identifying antinatalism with being suicidal/depressed/unhappy? I like my life. This has nothing to do with antinatalism. Enjoying your life and filling all this world with little humans for fun are two different things.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 17:58:35 2013 No.4356302

>>4356284
>Why don't you please start identifying antinatalism with being suicidal/depressed/unhappy?
I guess you mean stop identifying there?
In any case i'm not claiming that.
I'm pointing out that the argument you use to justify antinatalism ring hollow when it comes from the position of someone who clings to life.
>Enjoying your life and filling all this world with little humans for fun
If you enjoy it what precisely is wrong about bringing other humans in to share this joy?
If anything shouldn't that be a moral good, assuming that such joy can be enjoyed by them as well?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:01:34 2013 No.4356308

>>4356276
>Obviously. But why would you want universal application of it? It's basically a huge 'stop liking what I don't like'.
No you are basically saying "stop disliking what I don't like". I just don't like humanity as it is right now and I'm pretty convinced about the impossibility of fixing it. I honestly don't give a fuck about you (plural, humans) and what you do. But when you think to yourself "man, raping someone isn't something I would like to do, and I don't really feel happy when other people do it... I can just certainly say I will never participate in such event" you are just in a "stop liking what I don't like" attitude?

>This can be said of all acts.
Yes. Except for the biological part. But some of us don't feel this selfish biological desire and can't find a single convincing reason why that is desirable beyond selfish biological desire.
>I don't know any people like that
Are you a Tibetan monk?

You talk like I'm going to sterilize all the population. I don't force shit on anyone. I still find it stupid and morally unacceptable for me, though. Maybe there's individuals who are nice, I'm not denying it, I have friends and family. But the system as a whole is fucked. And every human in existence WILL collaborate with it as long as he doesn't want to life as a goat, alone on some mountain. I personally don't want to collaborate.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:03:35 2013 No.4356314

>>4356308
>I'm not denying it, I have friends and family.
Sounds like you're denying it while realizing you're wrong.
>But the system as a whole is fucked.
Which system in particular?
>And every human in existence WILL collaborate with it as long as he doesn't want to life as a goat, alone on some mountain. I personally don't want to collaborate.
You're collaborating right now unless you've found a way to get internet free without driving up bandwith useage to your source.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:09:36 2013 No.4356329

>>4356302
I'm neutral about life. I personally have found (putting effort on it) a way to live as I want. But, due to circumstances, it's easier to be unhappy than to be happy; Anyway, it takes a lot, A LOT of responsibility to have a child. Most people just look at it like a caprice, something they want to be happy, but most just aren't responsible enough. At least I accept it (anyway, it's not like I wanted to breed).
I don't think humanity deserves to be continued. I don't really care about what happens, but when I think someone doesn't deserve something, I just don't give it to him.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:14:33 2013 No.4356347

>>4356314
>Sounds like you're denying it while realizing you're wrong.
I'm not denying it and I don't realize I am wrong. Actually, I believe I am right. Most people being retarded, this system being fucked beyond salvation and this species being pathetic has nothing to do with some nice individuals spread around the world. It still doesn't make the whole thing being worth it.
>Which system in particular?
This globalized macroeconomic neoliberal pseudo-democratic system.
>You're collaborating right now unless you've found a way to get internet free without driving up bandwith useage to your source.
I'm getting my little luxuries because living without them would make my life worse. But I won't make an extra effort to help this system. And I sure won't bring new individuals in it. My DNA won't keep floating around in this mess when I die. That would be the absolute end of my contributions to this pathetic joke.

None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 18:15:33 2013 No.4356352

cruelty isn't necessarily about pain, if i do something painful to somebody that they want done to them i wouldn't call that cruel. even if you give birth to an aids infested child born with prostate cancer if the person is glad you did so the act isn't cruel.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:19:34 2013 No.4356362 File: 55 KB, 320x240, thanks-for-not-aborting-me.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4356352 People who think like this just deserve to be born in those conditions.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:21:34 2013 No.4356368

>>4355754
not giving life =/= 'squelching life out of existence'

human life isn't the only form of life, but it is the only form which can come to rational conclusions about the act of bestowing existence.

again, antinatalism does not advocate and suicide or mass murder... please understand positions before you argue against them

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:23:33 2013 No.4356372 File: 33 KB, 613x517, 1384682859054.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4356241 >I see antinats as fat people picketing McDonalds preventing others from entering while they gorge themselves on burgers all day...

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:25:33 2013 No.4356383

>>4356308
>I just don't like humanity as it is right now and I'm pretty convinced about the impossibility of fixing it
this is not grounds for antinatalism

it honestly seems that neither the people for nor those people against antinatalism in this thread know what they are talking about. please read a book, antinatalism is a purely technical position and does not care if the earth is a utopia or a war-ravaged hell hole.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:25:34 2013 No.4356378

>>4356308
> I honestly don't give a fuck about you (plural, humans) and what you do. But when you think to yourself "man, raping someone isn't something I would like to do, and I don't really feel happy when other people do it... I can just certainly say I will never participate in such event" you are just in a "stop liking what I don't like" attitude?
Antinatalism goes beyond the personal choice not to reproduce, it's subscribing to the idea that humanity should go extinct. There's quite a difference. If you don't care what other people do, you're not really an antinatalist.

>Yes. Except for the biological part. But some of us don't feel this selfish biological desire and can't find a single convincing reason why that is desirable beyond selfish biological desire.
All desires are equally biological, including your desire for human extinction, which you want because you don't like life/humanity. That's just as selfish.

>Are you a Tibetan monk?
Nope. You don't have to be. I know all kinds of people, from bums to millionaires and from soldiers to monks. None of them place consumerism at the peak of their existence.

>You talk like I'm going to sterilize all the population. I don't force shit on anyone. I still find it stupid and morally unacceptable for me, though. Maybe there's individuals who are nice, I'm not denying it, I have friends and family. But the system as a whole is fucked. And every human in existence WILL collaborate with it as long as he doesn't want to life as a goat, alone on some mountain. I personally don't want to collaborate.
The goal of antinatalism is extinction. It stems form a negative value judgement regarding humanity or even existence in general. Wouldn't sterilisation of the population be a moral act form your perspective? It would 'save' innumerable lives.

Systems can change by the way, they have done so often enough. There's no reason to consider this the final one.

>>	None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 18:26:33 2013 No.4356384 >>4356362 maybe that kawaii retarded freak child has learned to appreciate its life regardless of what society thinks of it... what business is it of yours

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:31:34 2013 No.4356417

>>4356368
>antinatalism does not advocate and suicide or mass murder...

Their arguments depend on the idea that Non-Existence is more ethical or superior to Existence.

The anti-nat will not argue for suicide (even though his beliefs logically lead to suicide) because he actually enjoys life and desperately tries to perpetuate his own existence, while arguing that others should not exist...

A truly hilarious, selfish and hypocritical position

>>	None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 18:34:34 2013 No.4356439 >>4356417 most antinatalists just don't want to die, that's why their arguments are "you shouldn't give birth" because no birth = no death, and not "you should kill yourself"

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:35:34 2013 No.4356440 File: 281 KB, 526x339, 1378166393094.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4356241 a completely anti-life philosophy meant for other people, not yourself....gee I wonder who is responsible

>>	None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 18:36:33 2013 No.4356447 >>4356440 isn't that "kill the goyim" stuff all fake and not really in the talmud at all though

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:37:33 2013 No.4356451 >>4356447 it's in the secret one we don't know about tips stahlhelm

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:39:34 2013 No.4356456

>>4356378
>humanity should go extinct
I would really be ok with the extinction of humanity. By the moment I want not to procreate by any means, and I don't really find it something pleasant when I see a pregnant woman and think about another living being in coming. I'm not the kind of people who get in the life of others, but I'm not a fan of humanity. That's for sure.
>All desires are equally biological, including your desire for human extinction, which you want because you don't like life/humanity. That's just as selfish.
Did you... even read? Of course desires are selfish. But I don't really "desire" the extinction of humanity, it's not like I care that much. I just don't like it and don't want to participate, and I would be ok with its extinction. Don't talk about life and humanity as the same, please, the other living beings are ok. I think I'm just like racist, but with all races of humans.
>None of them place consumerism at the peak of their existence.
Of course not, most of them have equally stupid shit to place.
>The goal of antinatalism is extinction.
Well, in a extreme teleological sense, yes. But I just think about myself in my circumstances: I don't want to reproduce and I don't feel it pleasing when other people do.
>It stems form a negative value judgement regarding humanity or even existence in general.
Just humanity, in my case. Yeah.
>Wouldn't sterilisation of the population be a moral act form your perspective?
Not really. I don't like deciding for others. I don't particularly enjoy the suffering of people who are sterile and want to reproduce. It would be nice if everybody agreed to momentarily stop reproducing until we reach better circumstances (which could never happen).
I would be ok with it, though.

>Systems can change by the way, they have done so often enough.
Yep, capitalism is pretty well designed, though. better than anything I've seen before, it sure "capted" something inherent to humans (or modern humans at least).
>There's no reason to consider this the final one.
True. I think I'm pessimistic about it, though. I mean, it won't last FOREVER. But I'm pretty sure I won't see the end of it even if I lived more than 200 years.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:40:34 2013 No.4356461

>>4356439
>most antinatalists just don't want to die
> that's why their arguments are "you shouldn't give birth" because no birth = no death

"you shouldn't give birth" is their conclusion based on premises that non-existence is superior to life, their premises and values also imply suicide is superior to continuing life.

they disregard the logical conclusion of their beliefs because it is inconvenient.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:41:34 2013 No.4356467 >>4356383 >antinatalism is a purely technical No fuck, Einstein. I'm talking about my version of it, just in case it wasn't obvious as fuck. There are lots of different views on it.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:43:35 2013 No.4356475
File: 502 KB, 1015x1028, 1386719012217.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>4356447

I'm sure it depends on how you interpret it. The supreme sephardic rabbinic leader of Israel interpreted it as the goyim are meant to serve the jew, not be exterminated.

>>	None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 18:47:33 2013 No.4356486 >>4356461 you're assuming antinatalists not killing themselves is a result of hypocritical or inconsistent ideology rather than a lack of courage or compassion for the people their suicide would effect, though

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:47:33 2013 No.4356487 >>4356475 >the goyim need to die, but God gives them longevity, they are like donkeys that need to serve a master lmfao

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:50:33 2013 No.4356503

>>4356456
Capitalism doesn't need to end as much as it needs to complemented with a welfare state. Just look at the wealthier parts of Europe. 10/10 would live in again and keep populated, especially since work becomes more and more optional and technology more and more durable. Add a bit of wisdom and you can live extremely well.

>>	None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 18:51:33 2013 No.4356506 >>4356475 interesting

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 18:54:33 2013 No.4356516

>>4356486

>his death might make others sad

So would preventing people from having babies, does this somehow negate anti-natalism as well?

1. the future suffering he prevents for himself by committing suicide could justify the suffering he inflicts on ignorant people who don't realize the truth and goodness of his superior logic.

2. His suicide doesn't cause others to suffer, their own ignorance and irrationality causes them to suffer--more reason for them to follow his lead

None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 19:01:33 2013 No.4356535

>>4356516
>So would preventing people from having babies, does this somehow negate anti-natalism as well?
no, because the "suffering" would be prevented for the babies that aren't born from this

and your points don't really take away the fact that suicide would hurt the people they care about not hurting and they don't want to do that

there are some ok arguments against anti-natalism but yours just aren't very good

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:04:33 2013 No.4356545 >>4356535 >no, because the "suffering" would be prevented for the babies that aren't born from this This works the same for the guy who commits suicide, see point #1 in the post you replied to.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:05:33 2013 No.4356548

>>4356535
>and your points don't really take away the fact that suicide would hurt the people they care about not hurting and they don't want to do that

so you're saying that is their irrational justification for not doing the right thing their philosophy implies

>>	None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 19:06:33 2013 No.4356551 >>4356545 the antinatalist isn't against suicide though, just against his own suicide because of guilt. he bears the suffering of existence for the ones he cares he about

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:08:07 2013 No.4356555 >>4356551 What an awful way to live.

>>	None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 19:09:07 2013 No.4356560 >>4356555 i agree

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:16:07 2013 No.4356581 File: 162 KB, 653x487, diogenes beg statue.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] When a man said to him, that it was a bad thing to live; "Not to live," said he, "but to live badly."

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:18:07 2013 No.4356589 Do any of you antinatalists work for your cause or is it just empty posturing and sour grapes?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:25:07 2013 No.4356610

>>4355872
>Oh, look out, everybody, we're dealing with a genius here.
I may not be a smart man but at least I'm not some coward that believes chastity until extinction would solve anything.
>Life is ok. It's the problem is the people who populate the earth. Anyway, I'd like to hear what's your justification to say it's "the greatest thing in the known universe".
Because dickbrain, we're the only beings in the known universe who are capable of altering our surroundings. Everything else just floats around without sentience. We have the unique privilege to change what we perceive. That's a gift, not a curse. Shit might be bad (it's not, you're just a dramatic) but we can always improve as long as we exist. And what good is planet Earth without us? At this point the most important thing on Earth is human life.
>Yeah because the third world isn't MOST of the world. Ignorant retard...
And yet the living conditions in the third world are improving at an astounding rate over the last century. The global quality of life has never been higher.
>Now Buddhism is bullshit too? Yeah, you're obviously a genius. The problem isn't life, it's humanity, for example ignorant and stupid people like you.
No but your pity party based on the tenet that "all life is suffering," is bullshit.
>Ok, ok, I get that you don't know what you're talking about.
Perhaps, but I take solace knowing I'm not the retard advocating for willful extinction because muh life is too hard, wah
>Nobody talks about being defeated, retard. it's about this civilization and realizing it's decadent and beyond solution. Why continue something that's clearly failing. There's a lot of more interesting species that could populate the world if humanity wasn't monopolizing resources, destroying nature and extinguishing species for the sake of it
Lol, like what? We should step aside for the second coming of the Dinosaurs? They had their chance. We are the most interesting species ever if only because we can leave behind a record for the next heir. And how are times more decadent than before? How is civilization "failing"? You make some sweeping claims without any evidence. Basically you sound like a whiny misanthrope with the worst idea ever.
> Oh wow, you know a lot about the universe, why don't you tell me more about it?
Why don't you tell me what you think is more important, in the known universe, than humans. Without us here to observe it, what point is there in any of the stars existing?
>Also, miracle? Don't make me laugh...
You sound like you desperately need more laughs in your life
>Learn science first and learn what life is. it's not a miracle you ignorant and retarded fucker. Go spout your cheap pseudo-spirituallity somewhere with stupid enough people to take it seriously.
Jesus, are you autistic? Of course it's not a literal miracle, as in ordained by God. But it is pretty astonishing that all these coincidences and forces coalesced to create sentient life. I'd call that a miracle.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:26:08 2013 No.4356615

>>4356551
>just against his own suicide because of guilt. he bears the suffering of existence for the ones he cares he about

But even this is not an argument against my point. My point was that the underlying premises of anti-natalism promote suicide.

Whether a particular anti-natalist is strong enough to carry it out is irrelevant.

An anti-nats' parents and relatives might suffer immensely if they hear he is anti-natalist and not going to procreate. This has no bearing on the logical implications of anti-natalism as a philosophy.

>>4356535
>because the "suffering" would be prevented for the babies that aren't born from this

But invariably 99.9% of babies that are born value life over non-life, and despite the suffering they experience they think life has a net positive value. So by preventing the person from being born you are actually not doing a good thing at all, you are simply robbing them of a potential net positive experience.

None !!lZetafI6z8s Tue Dec 10 19:32:07 2013 No.4356634

>>4356615
your point was that antinatalists are hypocrites or ideologically fraudulent for not killing themselves, though. i'm saying their suicide or lack there-of doesn't have any bearing on their stance because there are reasons why an anti-natalist wouldn't commit suicide that have nothing to do with their ideological views.

>But invariably 99.9% of babies that are born value life over non-life, and despite the suffering they experience they think life has a net positive value.
this is one of the better arguments against antinatalism, though i don't think non-existent beings that only exist in our imagination can be "robbed" of anything...

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:34:07 2013 No.4356638

>>4355872
>Bullshit. We still don't know shit about the universe. Life is but a little (yet the most complex we know) phenomena. The ignorance and stupidity emanating from this sentence is totally overwhelming.
What is ignorant about it? So far as we know we are the most important thing in all of existence. What else matters if not sentient life? I'm serious, who gives a fuck about a bunch of space dust? Whatever the case, I don't see any reason for us to stop breeding just because there's so much we have yet to know about our universe.
>Yeah, it would be ok if all living being continued existing forever occupying all the space on the earth and extinguishing all the resources. It would be fun as hell.
Oh, go fuck yourself. If you want to sit here and pretend to be blase about death and extinction then go fucking kill yourself. Obviously you care about life enough to selfishly cling to it. Why not do your cause a favor and take an early exit. No one will miss your retarded position on the future of mankind. Besides, I said I'd disagree. Death is a necessary part of the Earth's recycling process so that those precious resources you claim we waste can be replenished.
>There's only one cycle and it's the cycle of life AND death. It's just a cycle of transformation. And humanity should just continue with this cycle and let place to another different thing, so far the world has had enough.
Okay Thomas Pynchon. The thing about life that everyone but you has seemed to realize is that it struggles to persist. Ever see a wounded animal? They don't give up. Life wants to continue and spread. That is the reason it exists, to replicate DNA and branch out. That's part of the cycle too. Birth and death are the two definite, but in between life does everything it can to continue on. Your "solution" does no favors to anything. Not to Earth (if the Earth needs rescuing we'll figure out a way to do it), not to life in general (hurr durr, accept the fate that one day we'll be extinct and get it over with).

I stand by my original statement. Your position is retarded. You are retarded.

The funny thing too is that you tried to make it look like I was some cocky pseudo-intellectual, and it turned out to be a projection. Surprise, surprise from the guy who thinks we should all just die out.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:49:07 2013 No.4356678 >>4356634 > there are reasons why an anti-natalist wouldn't commit suicide that have nothing to do with their ideological views. Of course there are always reasons to be a hypocrite.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:57:07 2013 No.4356698 >>4352864 Not that guy, but you are just an angst ridden teenager. Anyone who isn't can plainly see that, go jerk off in a tissue captcha: autskoz wood

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 19:58:07 2013 No.4356701

ITT:

A high school Holden Caulfield wannabe tries to troll anon and doesn't realize that many of the older members see right through his charade.

Like others have said OP, I remember when I went through the phase you're going through. I was young, maybe 14 or 15, and the only person among my peers reading philosophy and /lit/. I thought everyone was stupid and myopic, only focused on reality TV and hormonal urges. When I reached HS I made a few friends and yet I still felt out of place.

Then I grew up, went to college, worked my ass off, met other weirdos, made a few mistakes. I fell in love, had my heart broken a couple times and felt pain (real, sharp emotional pain from lacking something you feel like you need, not the steady pain of being numb), grew out of it all and gained (I hope) a little insight along the way.

If I could give you some advice, though I know you wont listen (I wouldn't have listened either), don't shut people out immediately. Don't jump the gun before they get a chance to open you up and make you realize how pathetic you are. I'm not being condescending, it's a truly uplifting experience to have someone weaken you and show you that you're fallible and far from immortal.

Throughout your life you'll encounter people you'll love and people you'll loathe. It takes time to truly realize the difference. Some of my best friends would have been enemies to me in HS, and I probably would have never existed to them, because we have divergent opinions on politics, art, culture, etc. But they have their moments and they're genuine, good-natured people.

The good news is: You'll find those people too. They'll come to care about you, and you for them.

Once you pass the precipice into adulthood (not just graduating HS, but when you make that startling realization that, holy shit, the controls have been handed over to me now) No one will ever force you to have children. No one will ever force you to think like them. A thousand sources will try to convince you of a thousand different things and you can tell each one of them, no.

No one will ever force you to open up to anyone, not even to yourself.

At the same time you'll realize that fighting yourself and others all the time does nothing but wear a person down. The world is a spectacular place when you give up the chip on your shoulder and make a little room for tenderness. After all, life is too short to be alone and think yourself better than the world.

Before you know it the ride will end and I doubt, if you look into your heart of hearts, you want to spend the whole time pretending not to enjoy it.

Keep it real friend. Anon is always here to talk and, more importantly, to listen.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:15:07 2013 No.4356744

>>4356701
What if I've opened myself up to people only to be met with eventual indifference at best to outright mockery--though subtle--at worst? Sincerity is exhausting, especially at an age when it's almost antithetical to popular perceptions of "enjoying youth" or "having fun."

I am not entirely pessimistic in my ability to connect with people (I've done it twice, truly, in my entire life (21)), but it just get's so tiring sometimes.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:28:07 2013 No.4356776 >>4356701 ITT: Emotional appeals and poor objections to antinatalism

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:30:07 2013 No.4356786

>>4356744
True, I know that feeling. Meeting people is hard. I'm not going to assume that you aren't open to being sociable, but are you as willing as you could be?

Be honest with yourself and others and I think you'll find that the ones you want to keep around will return the favor in kind. Sincerity is exhausting, but that's the price you pay for worthwhile companionship.

No matter how much you might think otherwise, we all need somebody to lean on from time to time - like Satchmo says. We all have weak moments and to a certain extent we all fear the unknown, especially when it resides in the other.

Although you also have to be willing to compromise a bit. No one will ever meet the exact specifications for what you find attractive in a partner/friend/coworker, etc. They are not you, they are a wholly separate person with a history, fears, wants, annoyances, baggage, basically everything that entails you but a little different. If you can accept that about people, as well as yourself, then I think, or at least I found for myself, that you'll tend to be less objectifying of others.

After I've acknowledged to myself that everyone else is just as confused and scared as I am I've found that it has a generally disarming effect. I stop expecting them to be something that suits me and they quickly learn that I'm confident in asserting who I am and decide whether or not they want my presence in their lives. Most of the time we get along well enough - some better than others, and some to the point of intimacy - and have a relationship that is fruitful for both of us. Not always, but most of the time.

You get out what you put in. It does take effort to recognize those moments when you're raising a shield to prevent others from seeing inside, but if you let it down the rewards outweigh the alternative of being empty - because even if you are satisfied with yourself, you'll find moments when it's tougher to be alone than to be ridiculed. Even if that ridicule comes from those whom you respect.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:31:07 2013 No.4356790 >>4356776 but antinatalism is itself an emotional appeal

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:36:07 2013 No.4356812

>>4356776
Heh, maybe I was a little overwrought. Rationality and reason aren't golden gods atop Olympus though. They're affected by their human source as much as emotion.

Or, rather, don't totally discount the importance of emotion, even in a rational argument. Don't totally rely on them either, but don't toss them into the waste bin.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:37:07 2013 No.4356817 >>4356790 This. Antinatalism is intellectualised 'boo life! boooo!!'. That's about it.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:44:07 2013 No.4356844 >>4356467 your version is stupid

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:46:07 2013 No.4356854 >>4356790 >>4356817 Natalism is intellectualised 'ooh life! ooooh!!'. That's about it. When you guys start presenting counter-arguments to prominent versions of antinatalism. I'll start taking you seriously.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:48:07 2013 No.4356859

>>4356417
>Their arguments depend on the idea that
no you dumbfuck you're missing the key point here

it's the idea that non-existence is superior (this is the wrong word...) to existence IF YOU DON'T ALREADY EXIST. the game changes entirely once you gain a meaningful ontology.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:52:07 2013 No.4356875 PLEASE DO NOT CONFOUND BLATANT MISANTHROPY AND TEENAGE ANGST WITH ANTINATALISM

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:56:07 2013 No.4356887

>>4356859
but how can you even fucking determine a preference, non-existence to existence, if you don't have that ontology in the first place? you literally have to be 'being,' in the Heideggerian sense of the world, before you can evaluate the benefits of non-being.

in other words, if a baby is never aborted and it's born into an empty world, does anyone care when it cries? does anyone care when you cry?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:58:07 2013 No.4356900

>>4356812
I don't know about you, but I can't consciously experience emotions, they become ethereal the instant they've passed, I can recollect their general form, an impression of them, but the emotions themselves are far more powerful than the impression they leave. I can explore them, prod at them, and understand them (primarily in relation to the thoughts that spawned them) but they're sub-conscious in nature, I cannot actively will myself to experience them in their purest form.

Its from this base that I conclude that my emotions are subservient to my reason, and thus to my conscious will. I don't discard them as Descartes did, but to argue in favour of pure emotion, that is to say emotion in such a form as to be independent of reason seems to me to be foolish.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 20:59:07 2013 No.4356907

>>4356859
>it's the idea that non-existence is superior (this is the wrong word...) to existence IF YOU DON'T ALREADY EXIST

So for an existing person the state of existence is superior (what is the right word?) to non-existence.

So once a person is born life is worth living and net-positive. Okay. Why is life negative and inferior prior to him being born, what changes?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:00:07 2013 No.4356909 >>4356854 >Natalism is intellectualised 'ooh life! ooooh!!'. That's about it. I agree. Both are ridiculous. People judging life as a whole is like a fish judging water. We can't say anything sensible about it since it's all we know.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:06:29 2013 No.4356940 >>4356909 >I agree. Both are ridiculous. People judging life as a whole is like a fish judging water. We can't say anything sensible about it since it's all we know Oh, fuck me Anon. Did you get a flu shot? Do you even believe in analytic truth?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:07:29 2013 No.4356944 Anti-natalists are like Vegans who recommend veganism to other people, but not themselves, because: "it's too late, I've already eaten meat lol, I might as well keep eating meat to not upset my family"

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:11:29 2013 No.4356961 >>4356940 No and define analytic truth.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:13:29 2013 No.4356965 >>4356944 not really. it isn't that it's "wrong" to live, it's that it's "wrong" to create life. your analogy would work if they had kids not to upset their family

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:16:27 2013 No.4356974

>>4356887
existence begets its own contemplation. the absence of preference is neither a preference for absence or non-absence, so why not opt for the passive. doing otherwise is not for the sake of an unborn child, but for the sake of the world which is born into -- this is an absurd justification, completely circular. just realize that there is no rationality behind it, and that humans are really the only species that can make this distinction... and not for any lack of resources or joys to be had in the world (this has been stated multiple times) as with the rest of the animal kingdom, but for the recognition of a needless eventuality. it simply does not have to happen.

i fail to see how your anecdote is relevant.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:16:27 2013 No.4356975

>>4356965
>it isn't that it's "wrong" to live, it's that it's "wrong" to create life

If life is better than the alternative, why would it be "wrong" to create it?

>your analogy would work if they had kids not to upset their family

So antinatalism is in favor of having kids as long as the benefits are sufficient, like money, happy parents? lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:21:27 2013 No.4356991 >>4356907 it's not negative, it's that the question simply does not exist. it's like asking for the time of day before the big bang (NOT the creation of the earth, this is important).

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:23:27 2013 No.4356998 >>4356961 A statement with its subject contained in its predicate. The usual paraphrased Kant definition. Example: A triangle is a three sided object.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:23:27 2013 No.4356999

>>4356900
Rationality is a useful device, especially when it's used to do the heavy lifting on otherwise difficult decisions. All the same emotion is a necessity in living the full spectrum of life. I see them acting on a seesaw of sorts. It takes balance most of the time, but there are certain occasions where one side weighs more than the other. Take genocide, for an extreme example. It could, and has been historically, argued as a rational if simpleminded solution to a complex problem. But it only takes a small stretch of the imagination using empathy, an important emotional impulse, to do unto others as you would have done unto you. It wouldn't be fair to judge someone based on something they can't control, and you likely wouldn't want them doing the same to you, and though emotion may lead to that initial judgment, it is also emotion that leads us to a more humanistic understanding of one another. Everyone laughs, and cries, and dies. We can all relate on those levels, even and especially if we acknowledge that we arrive at those places from individually differing starting points.

It sounds a bit like you're trying to self-diagnose as a sociopathic personality, no offense. I've known a few people who've felt that way and generally they find their emotions emerging in unexpected situations. They cry during an emotionally manipulative movie they would've otherwise disregarded as trash, or laugh at their father's funeral. You may feel like you're suppressing those instincts, but I assure you that they'll pop up to bite you when they get hungry.

I think the key for you is finding some way to harness those emotions and let go of a little bit of control. Some people use drugs and alcohol. While I wouldn't necessarily call that a healthy approach, it's hard to begrudge them if their system works.

You don't seem that type though. So I'd recommend you find something spontaneous to fill out your free time. Find an activity that puts your body in motion and your mind at ease. Exercise, meditation, prayer, whatever. Anything that clears your mind and gives you attainable outcomes.

If you're looking to add permanence to those inclinations, try creating. Art is essentially making a record of expression that the artists saw fit to share with the world. This board exists because a slew of authors needed to get something off their chest and wanted it to be lasting and to reach others besides themselves. Free writing is an intellectual exercise that allows the mind to clear all preconceptions. You just write without being critical and without stopping to question why it's taking a specific form, if indeed it is coming out coherently.

Don't doubt your own abilities. You're clearly a bright guy, albeit a tad too trapped in the recess of your own mind. Put in a little effort to let go of your constant need to maintain control and I think, in time, you'll find yourself feeling satisfied with the results.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:29:27 2013 No.4357030 Doesn't this seem a bit antiquated. I mean, if you're white and attractive, and someone with the inability to think cosmically, I think you're pretty set to have a great life.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:31:27 2013 No.4357042 File: 2.28 MB, 187x155, 1383570530265.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] and not 1 antinatalist argument was proposed or defended in this thread. lol

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:38:27 2013 No.4357076 File: 172 KB, 407x284, angelic face.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>4357042 The idea is that we should prevent future humans from being born because life is worth living. Yes because life is worth living and better than the alternative.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:42:28 2013 No.4357092

>>4352617
Mental illness is a terrible burden and often makes life not worth living, mental illness is also usually genetic and runs in families. In my opinion it is perfectly rational for mentally ill people to adopt antinatalism, and I believe they are right in doing so.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:42:28 2013 No.4357095 >>4356975 youre retarded

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:45:27 2013 No.4357104 >>4357095 you're not helping...

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:51:27 2013 No.4357124

>>4356999
The difficult decisions you're referring to are the Geisteswissenschaften, or what we call the humanities, they're inherently emotional problems with thought being used to articulate the underlying emotion. The problem is that people like to skip the second step and argue from emotion as opposed to with emotion. In this situation you should clearly combine the two so that you aren't coming to completely reasonable but absurd conclusions, while at the same time not projecting your emotions onto other people in a way that hinders argument.

Which is what anti-natalists are doing when they come to the absurd conclusion that non-existence in preferable to existence because they find that the suffering in the world outweighs the pleasure.

Schopenhauer makes a good case for this, but Nietzsche makes an equally good counter-argument in that the 'striving for' is inherently valuable.

But trying to project the Schopenhauerian worldview onto individuals who haven't even been born is, frankly, absurd and arrogant.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:52:27 2013 No.4357128

>>4352697
>it's you and people like you what makes me think this species isn't worth it

Okay, now think about the emotion you are feeling towards that guy. Now imagine someone else feeling that exact same way about you, because that's whats happening right now. Except I am not on some high horse above everyone else and realize that we are all pieces of shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:52:27 2013 No.4357132 if there was no joy to be had and no benefit to be gained from having a child, would you still do it?

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 21:58:45 2013 No.4357154

>>4357124
>But trying to project the Schopenhauerian worldview onto individuals who haven't even been born is, frankly, absurd and arrogant.

So then why do it? I don't mean placing restrictions upon others, since it appears that you're not advocating for something extreme like forced sterilization. I mean, why make that decision for yourself and your potentially unborn children.

The world might be heavier with suffering than redemption in your mind, and I understand that you can only ever know the world through your own subjective lenses, but who's to say that your child will feel the same way?

Isn't it more reasonable to afford them the freedom to come to that conclusion, or to disagree, on their own?

The job of a parent, past a certain age, is less about inundating a child with information to prepare them for what they'll face later, and more about helping them develop strategies so that they can autonomously evaluate their surroundings and make informed decisions.

Once they're past the age that they need someone to feed them, don't you think the less selfish thing to do is to try and bring more life into the world because of the innate potential life possesses? Theoretically, your child could go on to prove or disprove your thesis. They might be grateful for the life they were given beyond measure, even if your original intent might have been selfish.

Isn't that worth considering, at the very least?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:00:44 2013 No.4357160 >>4352864 Holy fucking hypocrisy, you know you are being condescending right? This must be a troll.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:05:44 2013 No.4357169

>>4357154
>>4357154
>but who's to say that your child will feel the same way?
>Isn't it more reasonable to afford them the freedom to come to that conclusion, or to disagree, on their own?
Think of it like this, I've played soccer and discovered the costs outweigh the benefits. Why should I allow other people to play it? If they disagree with me it;s probably due to biological biases.

Natalism is unethical, face it.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:10:15 2013 No.4357187

>>4357154
>Isn't it more reasonable to afford them the freedom to come to that conclusion, or to disagree, on their own?

No shit, this is the only not-retarded solution.

I hate to be mean, but if you're not willing to put up with the fact that life is hard(but clearly worth living otherwise you would fucking kill yourself), then well, you can go fucking kill yourself. Problem solved.

The people who don't do this because they aren't selfish enough to (for their friends/family) have my sympathy. I can see Schopenhauer's thought process, I understand it, but I'm just not pessimistic enough to think like he does.

Maybe I just haven't gotten my optimism beat out of me yet, but I don't think thats liable to ever happen.Growing up in California I saw all sorts of awful things, but right alongside it kind-hearted altruism and selflessness. These 'humanity is awful' people sound like children, at least to me.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:11:15 2013 No.4357191 Can anyone who wants to have kids explain why they feel that way? If you're going to say "because I want to continue to existence of life/contribute to humanity" please save us a step and give your reason behind wanting to do this.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:16:46 2013 No.4357212 >>4357191 because there are joys to be had and benefits to be gained.. >>4357132 is a more informative question to ask and have answered

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:17:46 2013 No.4357217

>>4357169
But that's kind of silly. You're assuming yourself to be a more capable agent of deductive thinking than others and not allowing any room for variety in the larger human fabric.

Not to simplify your argument to a meme, but it's essentially: Stop liking what I don't like!

Just because you got nothing of value out of soccer doesn't mean that others can't derive meaning from it. It doesn't make them implicitly incorrect for enjoying themselves either. It just means that you have a diversity of opinion. No bias necessary, only disagreement.

In either case, both of you will never know if you enjoy the game or not if you never step foot on the field. Prescribing someone else's feelings, or giving yourself an inflated superiority complex because you don't understand the appeal of soccer (or life) doesn't mean that you're doing others a favor by trying to keep them away from something they clearly do enjoy.

In fact, that makes your view extremely narrow minded. It boils down to: Everyone but me is wrong.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:20:46 2013 No.4357232
File: 111 KB, 960x709, edgemaster2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>oh my god John won't stop calling me gay at school BUT IM NOT ........... GOD I WISH EVERYONE WAS JUST DEAD!!!!!!!!!!

- OP after applying black mascara and cutting his wrists just to feel something

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:21:47 2013 No.4357240

>>4357187
I don't completely disagree with what you're saying, but your assertion that life is worth living because otherwise you would kill yourself is pretty ignorant.

Firstly, consider that we naturally have a bias towards living, it's a basic instinct, which immediately turns this into such a black and white thought. Secondly, people have other things to consider like how it will impact other peoples lives. If you have a child for example, you may no longer want to live but you have someone else depending on you and won't kill yourself because of that. Thirdly, hope. If someone carries out their entire life unhappy, but convinced it will turn around at some point, did they really live a worthwhile life?

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:22:47 2013 No.4357243 >>4357232 If you're not a misanthrope, what do you base your evaluation of people on? the real answer doesn't preclude empathizing with misanthropes, deep down you know this to be true.

>>	Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:25:46 2013 No.4357255 >even considering antinatalism worthy of discussion Some sickly death bound cunts can't handle life and try to persuade others to become nihilists as well. That's all. It's merely a symptom of a failing organism.

Anonymous Tue Dec 10 22:28:46 2013 No.4357269

>>4357191
My parental relationships are not healthy in most senses, especially with my dad. I have this idea of being a good father to my child. It's purely biological, but that's the person (aside from your romantic partner) that you'll have the best chance at getting close to. Your lives are intertwined with one another. You'll see their faults and try to guide them. They'll see yours and resent you, hate you, pity you, empathize with you. You'll live and see them grow old, have children of their own and if you're lucky, they'll be their when you make your way off of life's stage. Even if you're relationship with your child isn't perfect or as intimate as you'd like it to be, you'll look at them, they'll look back at you (either loving you, or hating you, or probably some mixture of both) and you'll think: i've known this asshole since they were born.

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

/lit/ - Literature