This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact; it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview)
Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.
2 months ago
Anonymous
https://i.imgur.com/CFmhdjk.jpg
Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews: >they go for a walk in the park >interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved >Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way) >Benatar literally starts crying and basically says "life is unacceptable" >interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)
Benatar is pretty unstable. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.
Most of it has to do with many of us cant have kids of our own due to the fact social skills are king in a high feminized society. If getting a woman pregnant was as easy as putting a coin into a vending machine most of us (I am however not, an antinatalist) wouldn't make these arguments in the first place.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Benatar is right because i’m socially moronic
[...] >those high dark triad traits or depression are less well-equipped to judge the truth of arguments about anti-natalism
That's specifically addressed in the excerpt.
>implying anti-natalism isn’t an ideology based on validating depressed angsty teens or people on the same developmental level
All of you are spergs getting your egos stroked because this man said “life is shit because i am unable to keep up with society without doing anything about it”
Noone owes you shit, noones gonna give you shit for free, happiness doesnt just suddenly happen. Work on things, get hobbies, see products of your work. See progress. Get interested in shit other than just yourselves. It works, you’re just too scared to try it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>See progress
Most antinatalists are antinatalists specifically because they are not seeing progress in their lives nor in society.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Nah. They say it's vain because everyone will die anyway. And the sacrifice is for a sacrifice or in other words trillions are tortured so that other trillions can be tortured and so on until everyone dies.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'm not seeing progress in my life. I have a job but it doesn't pay enough to buy myself a home, I'm middle aged and still renting. I apply but nobody responds. After bills and rent and groceries I don't have enough money left to feel comfortable. I don't want to have children while I'm poor.
You're just ad homing. if the antinatalists were the majority of humans, and this study truly represented their average psychology, then they'd be making the same studies about the cheery minority and their "broken" rose tinted world view.
of course it doesn't mean that either party is wrong. of course life can be good, but clearly it's bad if not awful for many others too. ultimately the good in life, even if it was more abundant than the bad, would not justify the bad.
if the cost of 5 million happy people was one burn victim (as a side effect) then that's one burn victim too many.
anyone that says otherwise is evil and should suck a big fat wiener to compensate for their evil.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>doesn't read the blurb anon attached which explains why it's not an adhom >just cries about being alive while voicing resentment towards those that aren't mentally deficient sad sacks like himself
Lol
2 months ago
Anonymous
>it's not an ad hom >we're not saying this is why you're wrong > but we're still going to bring it up as if it sounds like an argument
yea frick outta here kiddo
2 months ago
Anonymous
>anti-natalism requires a (subjective) quality of life argument that affirms the negative >it turns out people who affirm this have a preponderance toward mental illness and personality disorder >also, surrounding literature indicates they're less equipped to weigh the arguments being presented
It's not an adhom. This is an adhom: you're a whiny homosexual that also happens to be a moron. It's also a fact.
2 months ago
Anonymous
here is a fact, billions and trillions are suffering, their suffering is real. but you ignore all of that.
instead you get pissed at people that point out that maybe we should do something about the negatives in life. all you have is insults, you cowardly weasel.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>but you ignore all of that.
No I don't. What I do is make fun of morons fetishizing the suffering of others into a nonsensical ideology as a means to cope with how pathetic and small they are.
2 months ago
Anonymous
great, keep toying with that stereotype in your head. how dare people not have kids in this ginger garden world.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>stereotype in your head >how dare people not have kids in this ginger garden world
Imagine lacking the awareness required not to write those two things back to back. Lol, no you.
2 months ago
Anonymous
im sorry, I didn't know that we did in fact live in gingerbread land. those Chinese rape victims though? nah, must be my distorted view.
2 months ago
Anonymous
gotta say though. they do sound a bit too whiny.
good read overall.
2 months ago
Anonymous
how very empathic of you, mr "mentally healthy and stable person". I would never call you a sad sack anything but you have no problem looking down on anyone it seems.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>NO YOU
Lol, anti-natalists are pathetic morons. If they'd been given tough love as a kid maybe they'd be less narcissistic and wouldn't feel the need to impotently try to convince their betters reality conforms to their worldview which is informed by their proclivity towards mental illness and personality disorder.
You guys are mindless ideologues and there's really no point arguing with you. All I can do is point out how simpering and pathetic you are to others while enticing you to betray the fact you're not motivated by empathy but by a sick fascination with misery. Be less pathetic, please.
2 months ago
Anonymous
what a projecting moron, "tough love" is what gives people personality disorder. I bet you're very low on the empathy spectrum yourself.
most normal healthy people just argue that not all life is bad, I don't disagree on that point, as there is mutual respect in the exchange. but you clearly love to project.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>NO YOU (again)
It's been shown over and over in previous threads that anti-natalist logic comports with morally horrendous outcomes. It's been established that anti-natalists have a preponderance toward mental illness and personality disorder which inform their subjective arguments regarding quality of life. There's an interview with Benatar ITT that shows he's unstable and that he handwaves the fact the ideology he spreads has had a negative impact on the mental health of those that read his work.
You homosexuals don't have a leg to stand on. All you can do is focus on misery and suffering and try to compel others to do the same. It's pathetic. Do better.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I don't know, it seems very based on Benatar's part. Show empathy for others, share their pain.
The only israelite with empathy.
2 months ago
Anonymous
yes we're pathetic because we suggest a potential fix for the problems in life. no one is saying that we must force people to not have kids. but it is a potential solution, and there is nothing wrong with that approach. but it's just one approach.
for some reason you foam at the mouth mr mentally stable at the idea of some people not having kids.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>we're pathetic because we suggest a potential fix for the problems in life
You don't though. You try to convince others that life isn't worth living in an attempt to spread your misery to others. >it's just one approach
Pick a less pathetic ideology to subscribe to next time.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>You don't though. You try to convince others that life isn't worth living
No. but you're not arguing in good faith so why do I even bother.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>he handwaves the fact the ideology he spreads has had a negative impact on the mental health of those that read his work.
Not really. In the preface to Human Predicament he says that his conclusions may hurt the feelings of those who read it, which is not an impediment to publishing it because in the end he affirms, in accordance with his well-known conclusions, that his book will do much more good than harm.
>This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact
lol. they can't be dismissed at all due to just this. normalgay moron.
psychiatry as a field is mostly subjective biased bullshit anyways. it's mainly a political tool to used to gaslight and label your political enemies as mentally unwell, and right now it's the left whose in charge. unfortunately what ever good that could've come out of it to actually help people was poisoned long ago. but that's a whole other topic, enough about secular priests.
Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews: >they go for a walk in the park >interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved >Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way) >Benatar literally starts crying and basically says "life is unacceptable" >interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)
Benatar is pretty unstable. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Copy-pasted post
2 months ago
Anonymous
>incel, er sorry, "anti-natalist" in a spam thread crying that posts are recycled
Kek
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact; it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview)
>those high dark triad traits or depression are less well-equipped to judge the truth of arguments about anti-natalism
That's specifically addressed in the excerpt.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Benatar, in line with the depressive realism hypothesis, claims that some cases of depression may help to remove a person’s rose-tinted glasses – the optimism bias hardwired in all of us – that makes life seem better than it actually is. Cognitive biases are complex. It is hard to know when either a positivity or negativity bias is at play in our judgements. However, as Benatar points out in an essay for Aeon, “empirical evidence of various cognitive biases, most importantly an optimism bias, suggests that overestimation [of the good] is the more common error.” >https://www.samwoolfe.com/2020/06/antinatalism-and-depression.html
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Depressive realism is a hypothesis developed by the psychologists Lauren Alloy and Lyn Yvonne Abramson in 1988; it essentially states that depression may afford an individual a more accurate view of the world than the non-depressed. >Or in the words of comedian Drew Michael: “Depression is a medical condition where you see things for what they are.”
Again, this is specifically addressed in the paper. The authors state that their research wasn't guided by answering such a question (i.e. is the average adherent of anti-natalism better or less well equipped, due to their mental illness, to weigh anti-natalist beliefs) BUT given the literature surrounding the subject matter they conclude they are not. Also, Bentar is an obvious sperg whose work causes harm:
https://i.imgur.com/CFmhdjk.jpg
Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews: >they go for a walk in the park >interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved >Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way) >Benatar literally starts crying and basically says "life is unacceptable" >interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)
Benatar is pretty unstable. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.
.
These are facts, anon. Find a better way of coping than pretending all of reality conforms to your own defects. You'll be healthier.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Meh, but what about Benatar's homosexual pernicious arguments? He has too much evidence to support him anti-natalism there.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Benatar is unable to prove such and retreats to saying it's "vaguely true" when pressed. He also tries to pretend the asymmetry argument isn't central to his argument whenever people question its validity (and Benatards will parrot this assertion instead of responding to arguments that situate it as such).
2 months ago
Anonymous
>asymmetry argument
Quality of life argument*
2 months ago
Anonymous
Benatar is unable to prove such and retreats to saying it's "vaguely true" when pressed. He also tries to pretend the asymmetry argument isn't central to his argument whenever people question its validity (and Benatards will parrot this assertion instead of responding to arguments that situate it as such).
Honestly, it doesn't matter if he's wrong about that. His homosexual perniciosus arguments support his philosophy too well to refute it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Honestly, it doesn't matter if he's wrong about that.
It does because the asymmetry argument is a tautology that can be interpreted differently and/or rejected. The quality of life argument attempts to give gravity to it but is ultimately subjective. And again, Benatard admits he can't prove it concretely and retreats to the idea that it's "vaguely true" (which isn't good enough).
2 months ago
Anonymous
Intersubjectively talking he's right. Morally talking the homosexual pernicious must die.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Bentar is an obvious sperg whose work causes harm
if you admit that Benatar causes harm by merely just mentioning the negatives in life but then you moralgay about it, then you're just being a straight up moron. you're saying, essentially that we shouldn't try to solve those problems (or even acknowledge their severity). similar argument that priests used to make about people needing God to be good. shoving our head in the sand.
I don't think that's a good method as it didn't workout for Christian medieval europe very well.
>Depressive realism is a hypothesis developed by the psychologists Lauren Alloy and Lyn Yvonne Abramson in 1988; it essentially states that depression may afford an individual a more accurate view of the world than the non-depressed. >Or in the words of comedian Drew Michael: “Depression is a medical condition where you see things for what they are.”
>but you're neurodivergent! >I can't take you seriously you must be a complete normalgay like me that doesn't question reality not one bit! >also, you're Chad! >that's right, you have a Chad personality
Appeal to authority. >but the paper doesn't say that they're wron...
what's the point of bringing it up then? how does it add to the discussion? if I point out your limp dick does that mean that you're wrong about something? I mean, I suppose it doesn't mean that you're wrong, but I just wanted everyone to know that research revealed that you have a limp penis. just saying. not ad homing or anything but just saying that it might have something to do with your autism.
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder.
https://i.imgur.com/Je0LXj6.jpg
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact; it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview)
Lmao that's sad
You'd think a Machiavellian wouldn't loathe his own life so much that he'd project that onto the rest of humanity
I'm am antinatalist but I personally think Benatars book is pretty bad. Firstly the axiological asymmetry argument doesn't make sense. He compares the absences of goods and bads under different conditions (one person affecting and one 'objective') which produces the asymmetry in the first place (Julio Cabera wrote an excellent essay making the same point)., which means we are left with the quality of life argument - which is of course essentially just an opinion. It's subjective. "I think life is bad." Now I happen to agree with his take but it won't persuade the life lovers, but regardless people from the Buddha to Schopenhauer have made the same argument, using far better means and better speech to do so. And his attempt to "science the shit out of" antinatalism by bringing up depressive realism and Pollyannaism is just cringe. This isn't really a "scientific" philosophy - it's fundamentally about opinions, viewpoints, it's a subjective evaluation about the worth of life.
I'm not sure it's even something (antinaralism) that you could *argue* someone into. I see it as something borne out of my disposition a product of my own (lack of) enjoyment of life.
And in terms if getting others to change the behaviour of procreating - a nerdy book isn't going to do it! People respond to incentives. Give them tax relief for not having kids, make it some way materially benefit people to remain childfree and only then you will impact birth rates. And if you look at shithole countries what is the number 1 predictor of lowering birth rates? Female access to education/financial independence. When a woman is tied to a man for her money and security, she is trapped in a position where he can frick her with impunity. Producing these horrific explosions in population such as in India and Nigeria and Congo etc. But in developed countries where women can make their kwn money and get educated such as Nordic countries, South Korea etc? They choose to have far fewer children, or none at all.
Now personally I think its a bad thing to be born but I have no real argument against someone who says "I'm glad I was born, I enjoy life". That is their subjective evaluation of their own life and I am not so arrogant as to say that my own (opposite) subjective judgment trumps there's, or somehow makes theirs wrong, or is more "true" or whatever. I could make an argument about risk, unnecessary risk, the potential harm one puts their child in by having them, etc. But personally I don't really think it's a knock down argument. I don't have one. Antinaralism is just something I feel very strongly about. I won't procreate. I wish I were never born. For the sake of those who will be born and who will suffer, I wish others wouldn't procreate either. It won't happen though. The behaviour of other people is almost entirely out of my control.
I mean, I care about the physical pain of sentient beings. Because I have experienced it, people and animals close to me have experienced it. And it's very fricked up. Every day there is unimaginable agony among these beings and for what? And then inevitably die. All those “sacrifices” will be in vain in the end anyway. Being sad and angry (even though my life is fine) for them seems completely reasonable to me. Tell me why i'm wrong.
Why don't you have a nice day? Is it because life is worth living?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Every day there is unimaginable agony among these beings and for what?
You're being a pussy. Don't wallow in your depression. Seek out a social activity that involves physical fitness.
Tell why i'm wrong, cuck
2 months ago
Anonymous
Because you sound like a sad sack homosexual who retreats to narcissism in order to cope with his depression. You pretend that it's empathy but the reality is you're wallowing in a warped worldview that you think justifies you're resentment. It's pathetic.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Nah
There is unimaginable joy around as well, you just choose not to see it
Happiness doesn't matter. Because for you to stay happy, many must be tortured.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yep. There's a reason several of the steps, like 3 out of 10, in the WikiHow for anti-natalism are devoted to instructing you gays not to be annoying.
2 months ago
Anonymous
There is unimaginable joy around as well, you just choose not to see it
2 months ago
Anonymous
My life is great and I don't want to commit suicide. Life in general is not only not worth living, it is unacceptable.
2 months ago
Anonymous
So your life is great? Worth living? What makes your life so much different from 'life in general'?
2 months ago
Anonymous
The chickens, cows, etc. that keep me alive did not have a good time. Physical pain is bad, every second a being is torn apart in raw/pure agony. That my life is good is an individual good and does not matter on a moral scale, stupid ape.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Well you have you asked those cows? No? then shut up
2 months ago
Anonymous
I work in a slaughterhouse, you stupid ape. Even pregnant cows are killed. They feel a lot of pain (for several seconds) in the slaughter process.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You don't even know what the frick you are talking about
2 months ago
Anonymous
Elaborate or kys
2 months ago
Anonymous
stfu homosexual
2 months ago
Anonymous
They answer that by regurgitating Benatard's analogy of sitting through a bad theatre performance. It's a stupid comparison for multiple reasons: it's trivial compared to living a life, it's trivial compared to the supposed suffering they pretend concerns them, lots of people would just walk out (sunk cost fallacy), it betrays the negative ideation that contaminates every last part of their worldview (i.e. find something to enjoy in it and let that be your focus), etc.
The bottomline is that there's no reasoning with anti-natalists because they're not reasonable people. They're ideologically possessed midwits with psychological disorders.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You sound quite mad, like profoundly mad at thid particular portion of people who in your view are nothing but ridiculous zealots, why is that?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>projection
I'm not your parents reflecting on how much of a failure their kid became, anon.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>(i.e. find something to enjoy in it and let that be your focus), etc.
Antinatalism is a ethics philosophy which concludes that the right thing to do is not to procreate and ultimately exterminate all sentient life. Going to be part of the enjoyment of life as you mention is simply a desire that does not belong to any philosophy and is irrelevant morally speaking. Kys
2 months ago
Anonymous
You're a crying homosexual who should shut up and have a nice day.
>projection
I'm not your parents reflecting on how much of a failure their kid became, anon.
mad normie
2 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but Because it would bring greater pain to people that do care about me. When they die I’ll probably check out.
>Every day there is unimaginable agony among these beings and for what?
You're being a pussy. Don't wallow in your depression. Seek out a social activity that involves physical fitness.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Caring about others is depression
Holy kek
2 months ago
Anonymous
Anti-natalists don't care about others. They're mentally ill midwits with personality disorders.
the fact that wealthy countries with women's rights have less children says a lot more about the nature of women than it does about the nature of life.
how about this for a matrix >life is not worth living >therefore I should kill myself
vs >life is worth living >therefore I should share the gift of life
I'm a naturally loving and caring person, and there's nothing I would want more than to be a parent, but I can't justify the act. And for me, it's about admitting to my own ignorance. I have no way to really determine whether life is a good or bad or neutral thing overall, so it seems insane to me to think that I have the right to just take a chance on that cosmic existential uncertainty completely on behalf of another person. It seems that to be a parent you need to either be unthinking or lack all humility, maybe both.
Interesting. I know that my children will dominate life and advance the species so I feel that it would be an injustice to the world if I didn’t have children.
>Taking care of a child for 18 years that you created yourself is not selfish
2 months ago
Anonymous
Correct.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yes?
>lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
Procreation is in order to serve their own procreative and related interests.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>lacking consideration for others
but you're considerate for another human, for 18 years. how are you this autistic
2 months ago
Anonymous
You created him. Your care was unnecessary in first place.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Your care was unnecessary in first place.
Yes it was? Do you guys just think in circular logic?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>you're just a depressive autist who confuses the fact it takes people to make a baby with the idea it's selfish (
No, you're just a depressive autist who confuses the fact it takes people to make a baby with the idea it's selfish.
)
Called it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Yes?
Not him, but it is selfish. However, I'm just going to outright assume you consider selfishness as inherently-negative which is your issue.
Women don't even love their kids. Kids are just a tool for them in order to smother them, play the helicopter mom, and delude themselves they are not loathsome. Women can replace biological or non-biological fathers in an heartbeat.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I've never been loved by a woman so I cope by trying to convince others it doesn't exist
Sad.
2 months ago
Anonymous
not really and I'd even suggest women only exist so the species doesn't croak.
Anti-natalism isn't complicated. There are basically two core arguments you have to contend with: the asymmetry argument and the quality of life argument. The asymmetry argument is flawed methodologically (it can't be proven; even Benatar admits it's only "vaguely true") and the quality of life argument is subjective (and when you take into account the proclivity anti-natalists have toward mental illness and personality disorder the fact their conclusions are rooted in a negativity bias becomes obvious).
The real problem is that anti-natalism is so simplistic at its core that it's easy to become ideologically possessed by it. One can give well-thought out reasons to reject the asymmetry argument and anti-natalists will just retreat to asserting its basic form which is tautological. You can explain the subjectivity of the quality of life argument but anti-natalists with just do one of two things: they'll insist that it's objective without responding to detailed arguments as to why it's subjective and/or minimize its importance in regard to their position as a whole (note that for the latter you can also make a good faith argument as to why it's central to accepting their conclusion and they will just insist it is not without directly addressing what you say).
That's the problem with these threads. When you have a discussion with an anti-natalist you're speaking to someone who has self-indoctrinated into an ideology they believe cannot be disproven. They can't understand when their core principle is being criticized so they will deflect by asserting a tautology while attempting to monopolize how outcomes related to it must be interpreted. Even after you point out this behaviour to them they won't address it because ideologues are incapable of arguing in good faith. They get BTFO every single time they make one of these stupid threads but will always come back again and fall into the same insufferable pattern.
Wrote so much to say nothing
All your retorts are implications that are just as subjective as those assertions by anti-natalists you refer to,
Speak clearly, moron
If you want to appeal to formal logic, then show your truth tables, or explain your arguments as an intuitive thread of thought
I'm really just writing this to call you a moron for writing like an academic fart — saying nothing
>depressed irl chuddy wishes he were never born
Then have a nice day, results in the same outcome. If you really believe God doesn't exist, which is the foundation of the belief that it is better to have never been, life after death will be nothingness. So what are you waiting for? Do it. Board quality will increase drastically.
I believe in God, and I think it's a sin to selfishly bring souls into a world filled with so many horrific things. You ever heard about the case of the autistic boy around 10 years old who was tortured for weeks by his siblings because they believed he was a witch? He was only a child, and yet he was begging for death by the end. The potential for agony is sky-high, while all our greatest joys are always mixed with bittersweet melancholy.
>man the frick up
Is this what you would say to that little boy? I do man up (in other words, cope), but I wouldn't have to if I was never born. And I don't see any excuse to impose this need to cope with the horrific nature of our reality on yet another entirely new person. Every one of them figuring it all out all over again from the start, billions of times. So tiresome. And for what?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Is this what you would say to that little boy? I do man up (in other words, cope), but I wouldn't have to if I was never born. And I don't see any excuse to impose this need to cope with the horrific nature of our reality on yet another entirely new person. Every one of them figuring it all out all over again from the start, billions of times. So tiresome. And for what?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>just look at the heckin nature
2 months ago
Anonymous
>but what about my superficial urbanite perception of le beauty of nature!?
In every one of those picturesque vistas, thousands of God's creatures are busy eating each other alive.
>meltdown seeing pictures of nature
LOL!
2 months ago
Anonymous
>but what about my superficial urbanite perception of le beauty of nature!?
In every one of those picturesque vistas, thousands of God's creatures are busy eating each other alive.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>In every one of those picturesque vistas, thousands of God's creatures are busy eating each other alive.
I never understood why you people are comparing suffering of a big animal to suffering of insects that are naturally meant to live one week at most and lay 1,000 eggs, you could split them in half and they still act like nothing happened and the 2 parts of the insect will run in different directions. they don't have the nervous system to suffer, they don't need it
>Year after year after year after year.
You need to have a nice day, OP. Do it now. Don't delay another day. It's only going to get worse, right?
how about this for a matrix >life is not worth living >therefore I should kill myself
vs >life is worth living >therefore I should share the gift of life
Why don't you have a nice day? Is it because life is worth living?
Pic related was an antinatalist and actually killed himself.
>I’m an antinatalist. I think it’s unforgivable to bring new people into this world given that there is suffering. The thing is that lately I’ve been thinking and feeling that people aren’t real. This would partially solve the problem of evil. There is just my suffering and everyone else is a simulation designed to spite me. This should cause me to not feel so antinatalist since the breeders are disgusting alien mockeries of a true human being, namely myself. Yet somehow I still feel very antinatalist. When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust. I suppose that was the intention of the designer(s), to create something that appeared so real that it was actually disturbing. Dr. Miller says I have some sort of syndrome after finding out about my solipsism. I think he’s an imbecile who deserves to be burned on a stake. But out of my bodhisattva-like compassion I would instead grant him a consciousness and send him to heaven forever.
Why i'm wrong. Intersubjectively speaking, physical pain is bad, something undesirable. Just because you're a masochistic b***h or you enjoy/don't care about other people's pain doesn't mean it's not a bad thing.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Pain is a biological function to tell you something is endangering your well-being. It's supposed to activate yourself to do something against the suffering. And because we have pain centers in our bodies that we literally need in order to survive, existing itself is not desirable? You must elaborate on this or your whole theory is nonsensical.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Thing is'nt bad because is... LE NATURAL/MECHANISM OF SURVIVING
Kys
2 months ago
Anonymous
So existence is bad because pain. But existence also has pleasure, what makes you think the pain outweighs the pleasure? If pleasure is 1 and pain is -1, the absolute value of both is completely equal even if one is negative and the other positive.
2 months ago
Anonymous
For pleasure to persist, there must be a lot of pain involved. For a lion to survive or a human. Eons of weaker beings will be sacrificed in agony. And worse still, neither lions nor humans are exempt from torture. There is chronic pain, there is no chronic pleasure.
The pain lasts longer, the pleasure is fleeting.
There is much, much more pain than pleasure in the world.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I forgot the pic
2 months ago
Anonymous
> There is much, much more pain than pleasure in the world
You have no proof for this.
2 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but does something have to be provable to be true?
2 months ago
Anonymous
If you want to form a cohesive argument out of it and make pronouncements based on it. Yeah. Prove it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Can you prove your very point?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I'm the one making the case for anti-natalism but you need to defend
Lol, onus is on you. If you can't prove something that's integral to your argument you should shut the frick up and stop boring everyone with your whinge.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>If you can't prove something that's integral to your argument you should shut the frick up and stop boring everyone with your whinge.
Can you prove I should do this?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>can you prove there has to be a basis to what I'm saying in order to put it forward as valid
Lol, moron.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>do things that are true need to be proven to be true >yes >can you prove that? >*brain malfunctioning* derrrr u a moron
2 months ago
Anonymous
>does something have to be provable to be true
(If you want to form a cohesive argument and make pronouncements based on it.) Yeah. >can you prove that statement
It's your onus. (If you can't prove something that's integral to your argument you should stop being such a crying homosexual.) >uh....uh....prove that!
You're asking that I prove you have to have a basis for what you're saying (in order to take it as valid). Holy shit you're dumb. >YOU'RE HAVING A MELTDOWN
I put the arguments in parentheses (that means brackets, moron). You're a moron.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>(If you want to form a cohesive argument and make pronouncements based on it.) Yeah.
Still waiting for you to prove this. Simply declaring it isn't an argument. >It's your onus. (If you can't prove something that's integral to your argument you should stop being such a crying homosexual.)
Prove it's my onus. Prove that I need to prove something if it's part of my argument. If you can't then stop acting like a whiny b***h. >You're asking that I prove you have to have a basis for what you're saying (in order to take it as valid). Holy shit you're dumb.
I wanted you to prove that something that is true has to be provable. You have failed to do so.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You've proven you're an idiot who can't follow basic logic. Congrats.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Unfortunately I'm forced by your own standard to disregard all your whiny declarations because you have continuously failed to prove a single thing. Sad!
2 months ago
Anonymous
>If P then X >P is not demonstrated >Therefore X is unknown
Hence the prior arguments: >A cohesive argument from which a conclusion may be drawn requires a provable premise (i.e. the conclusion follows the premise) >If you can't prove a premise that's integral to your argument you can't make pronouncements based on the conclusion (i.e. an unproven premise means an argument is not even logically invalid: it's a non-starter) >The premise is the basis of your argument and your conclusion is invalid if this cannot be proven (i.e. the truth of the premise entails the truth of the conclusion)
I don't want to argue against anti-natalism with you because it's best if you don't breed. Wait, who are we kidding? You'd have to be able to make eye contact with a woman for that!
2 months ago
Anonymous
The question was whether all true things are provably true. To answer the affirmative you would have to show that there are no true things that cant be proven. This is what you did not do.
>I don't want to argue against anti-natalism with you because it's best if you don't breed. Wait, who are we kidding? You'd have to be able to make eye contact with a woman for that!
I smiled but this is Facebook boomer tier.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>The question was whether all true things are provably true.
No, the question is whether or not your anti-natalist conclusions are based on a well-founded premise. They are not so you engaged in a semantic argument over the idea of "true" which you lost because you're an idiot.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I didn't make a single post on anti-natalism or the alternative in this entire thread. I asked about truth and provability. That was all.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Cool.
2 months ago
Anonymous
I accept your concession.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Naw, I thought you were just a run of the mill moron but it turned out you were just a pseud.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>the seething stage has begun
Ah, who am I kidding. You've been seething this entire time.
Ignoring the horrors of our world won't make them go away
2 months ago
Anonymous
>t. whiny homosexual who blames the universe because he sucks
2 months ago
Anonymous
Keep coping
2 months ago
Anonymous
>coping
Your team:
>man the frick up
Is this what you would say to that little boy? I do man up (in other words, cope), but I wouldn't have to if I was never born. And I don't see any excuse to impose this need to cope with the horrific nature of our reality on yet another entirely new person. Every one of them figuring it all out all over again from the start, billions of times. So tiresome. And for what?
. Lol.
2 months ago
Anonymous
How is he wrong?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I COPE...I DON'T WANT OTHERS TO HAVE TO COPE! (
>man the frick up
Is this what you would say to that little boy? I do man up (in other words, cope), but I wouldn't have to if I was never born. And I don't see any excuse to impose this need to cope with the horrific nature of our reality on yet another entirely new person. Every one of them figuring it all out all over again from the start, billions of times. So tiresome. And for what?) >THE HORRORS OF THE WORLD (
Ignoring the horrors of our world won't make them go away
) >you're being a melodramatic homosexual (
>t. whiny homosexual who blames the universe because he sucks
) >C-C-COPE! >lol
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Good luck with pretending reality is fricked up instead of living a good life. I'm sure that attitude will make you attractive to others and not result in perennial loneliness and depression.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Rose-glassed homosexuals like ~~*((You*~~) are incapable of moral perspectives, much less honor.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Keep on living your best life! Shouldn't be too hard, pretty low bar by the looks of things.
2 months ago
Anonymous
No, ignore the horribleness of the world and concentrate on looking at the landscapes and... LE BEAUTY.
It is the poorest perspective to see the world. Stop coping or kys
2 months ago
Anonymous
>No, ignore the horribleness of the world and concentrate on looking at the landscapes and... LE BEAUTY.
Sounds great. Will do, anon.
>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.
>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?
>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.
Benatar makes a little comment on this in Human Predicament. First he admits that antinatalism will only work on a small scale. He affirms that it is insanely optimistic to think about achieving that. Even if it were achieved, many years would pass in which more eons will suffer, it's indecent (for him) to sacrifice our lives for those of the future, and finally he adds that it would only be an opiate and not an eradication of suffering.
>Personal life >Not much is known about Benatar's personal life as he deliberately guards his privacy. He has held antinatalist views since his childhood.[14]
>Benatar is vegan, and has taken part in debates on veganism.[15] He has argued that humans are "responsible for the suffering and deaths of billions of other humans and non-human animals. If that level of destruction were caused by another species we would rapidly recommend that new members of that species not be brought into existence."[16][17] He has also argued that the outbreak of zoonotic diseases, such as the COVID-19 pandemic,[18] is often the result of how humans mistreat animals.[19]
>Benatar is an atheist and has stated that he has no children of his own.[20][21] He is ethnically israeli and he has criticized the “regressive left” at institutions such as the University of Cape Town for creating an environment hostile to israelites. He has also criticized South Africa for its increasing willingness to distance itself from liberal democracies and cozy up to autocracies, and in particular has criticized South Africans who sympathize with Hamas.[22][23]
It should be the other way around, antinatalists should ask others why they don't commit suicide. Well, it is better to sacrifice life than honor and morality. People are a terrible moral error and they should commit suicide
Yes of course, but not before giving you tons of money :^)
If anti-natalists actually believed in what they wrote, there should be no alive anti-natalists and they should've gone out in a mass murder spree
Of course they didn't, because it's a grift
2 months ago
Anonymous
Benatar basically says that violence always only brings more violence and this is evident in the history of the world. He says that the guys who cause genocides only do more damage instead of reducing it. I don't quite understand that
>life is... Le good!! >hehe stupid bug I will rip off your legs and watch tou whrite in "pain" for my own amusement >im so happy and empathetic unlike those anti natalist looneys
Incredibly interesting to see this shades sadism, so subtle and delicate, there is a certain beauty in minds like yours, like watching a malformed yet functional limb.
While I can't condone that guy, calling his mind malformed is just a pot calling the kettle black. You memed yourself into willing sterilit; very comical affliction. Which is unfortunate because at least for a time, your type (moralistic, compassionate, pessimistic, intelligent) will be gradually selected out of the genepool.
I'm sure it'll re-emerge sometime.
All sentient beings are organic garbage. And even if there were... LE SUPERIOR GENETICS
The majority of the population are subhumans who reproduce worse than rabbits.
>All sentient beings are organic garbage.
There's still different types. And it's fun to classify them. >And even if there were... LE SUPERIOR GENETICS
Some genes are objectively better than others. But it does depend on the situation. >The majority of the population are subhumans who reproduce worse than rabbits.
That's a constant. It has been before us, and will after us. One still has to try.
>While I can't condone that guy
is it so hard to agree there's a difference between insect suffering and animal suffering? they don't have a brain and a nervous system, you can't project your own moral system like the spider is losing a leg out of his 8 legs, the same as a person's pain losing a leg, or a dog.
bad, good, suffering, concepts only exists for us
Have you ever been an insect? Why are you so confident about this? This is just as dumb as people thinking fish can't feel pain because they don't scream when you cut them.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Why are you so confident about this?
because all pain and suffering has a very clear purpose. You feel hunger when you have to eat, you feel fear when you have to run and are in danger, you have nerves to tell you when to stop an action that could harm you. Insects work by laying many eggs while they sacrifice things like self-preservation, you have thousands of them that die but if 10% of those lay eggs, they make another tens of thousands and so on.
pain and suffering isn't "le bad" and there's no black and white state you can call "pain" and "pleasure" like Benatar thinks
2 months ago
Anonymous
Intersubjectively speaking, pain is something undesirable and consequently bad. Nature, ethics/morality and survival mechanisms are completely different things. Just because it is natural or a survival mechanism does not directly mean that it is a good or bad thing.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>because all pain and suffering has a very clear purpose.
Not always fricking moron. Not even the pain of childbirth is. But so that your ape-head understands it, I will tell you a simple example: Is all the pain that a deer receives when a lion devours it alive necessary for the lion to satisfy its hunger?
2 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but it's necessary to make the deer avoid the lion. Also, big cats don't eat their prey alive; they attack the jugular which results in near instant death. You should have went with something omnivorous like a bear but you're a moron anyway so...
2 months ago
Anonymous
Is all the pain he receives while being devoured so that the deer avoids the lion?
Even if it were true to say that all pain is necessary, it is moronic.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Is all the pain he receives while being devoured so that the deer avoids the lion?
Again, lions are big cats and take their prey out as quickly as possible. They don't devour their prey alive. You're thinking of bears, moron.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Also, big cats don't eat their prey alive; they attack the jugular which results in near instant death >instant death
However, in no documentary I have seen does this happen. The prey always writhes in agony while being eaten
2 months ago
Anonymous
That's because you're mentally ill and have a personality disorder which flavors your view of reality. Sorry, not our problem so stop trying to make it so. Get over yourself and stop being a whiny homosexual. Simple as.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>you're a sociopath for caring about the welfare of animals
Yea I can definitely see how sociopathic antinatalists really are
2 months ago
Anonymous
>anti-natalists are motivated by empathy and not mental illness informed by a sick fascination with misery
Lol
2 months ago
Anonymous
>don't look goyim! >ignore the suffering goy! >look! an ice cream cone, go consume!
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Is all the pain he receives while being devoured so that the deer avoids the lion?
Again, lions are big cats and take their prey out as quickly as possible. They don't devour their prey alive. You're thinking of bears, moron.
That's because you're mentally ill and have a personality disorder which flavors your view of reality. Sorry, not our problem so stop trying to make it so. Get over yourself and stop being a whiny homosexual. Simple as.
>DUDE THEY DIE INSTANTLY... BELIEVE ME BRO
Lmao keep coping, moron
?si=KdHlfQduJOmnRuDA
2 months ago
Anonymous
They do if we're talking about big cats. Animals like hyenas or bears are known to devour their prey while it's still alive.
Anyway, sorry that going outside gives you an existential crisis. Must be tough being such a pathetic homosexual.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Also, big cats don't eat their prey alive >They do if we're talking about big cats.
You moron
2 months ago
Anonymous
>DUDE THEY DIE INSTANTLY >They do if we're talking about big cats
Lol, when you're not too busy being a miserable little homosexual crying about being alive, work on your reading comprehension. Or, better yet: have a nice day. Deeds not words, pussy.
2 months ago
Anonymous
The video proves you wrong. You're even more moronic for standing your ground.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>one video confirms the entire hunting strategy of felids
Again, big cats hunt by going for the jugular and killing their prey. Reasons for this include: energy conservation (cats are ambush predators) and protecting themselves from injury. However, pack animals like Hyenas (who use the same throat attack strategy...there's a technical term for it but I'd have to look it up) will start devouring their prey while it's alive. They're a better example of the non-point you homosexuals are belaboring but an even better one is an omnivore such as a bear.
Again, sorry being alive makes you miserable but you could change that. Sad thing is the type of simpering homosexual who would subscribe to anti-natalisn is too much of a pussy to actually act on it.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>big cats hunt by going for the jugular and killing their prey
Well, it is clear that big cats do eat their prey alive, not always, but they do.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>it happens sometimes!
Lol, k. Use a better example next time (and there sadly will be a next time because you pathetic gays devote your lives to attempting to spread your mental defects onto others).
2 months ago
Anonymous
I never said they always did it anyway. I said they did, which is true.
2 months ago
Anonymous
You responded to a moderately detailed description of hunting strategies by posting a YouTube video and pretending I argued it never happens. You're moronic.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Nah. I never doubted it happened, but I thought you were denying that they weren't eaten alive.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>I thought
Liar, lol.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Nah
2 months ago
Anonymous
[...]
How is cancer pain necessary, you stupid apes?
the removal of pain has very clear negative consequences, using an electric current to kill chickens and pigs in farms painlessly does't make the death suddenly better.
Life is above your logic and your little ego, and your entire system of thought is an illusion that only creates more weakness, more confusion, more questions.
and of course you people talk about lions killing other animals but never about lions getting killed by a pack of hyenas
antinatalism is irrelevant, a failed idea, because you larp as being above life itself and judging it, in reality the problem is with you, not life.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>we can't judge life because we're not God!
I guess you won't judge a serial killer because you don't have absolute perfect knowledge.
and anitnatalism isn't a failed anything, as long as there are antinatalists around. >but never about lions getting killed by a pack of hyenas
they're victims too, you dimwit.
2 months ago
Anonymous
who said anything about god? it was about your criteria of judgement, how you assume pain is bad because it makes you suffer, but that's your ego talking. and your ego isn't that important >they're victims too, you dimwit.
it was to show you how violence in nature has a purpose, and pain can as easily be inflicted on the lion. you can't take pain away from existence and expect a better outcome
2 months ago
Anonymous
Why pain isn't bad? Intersubjectively talking is
2 months ago
Anonymous
pain only has subjective use, and it's very useful
Antinatalism wants to remove the existence of pain, not the pain of existence.
and with removing the existence of pain, it removes all life, because pain is useful and that's why it exists.
2 months ago
Anonymous
How is cancer pain useful? How is cancer pain necessary? What is the purpose of cancer pain?
>tl;dr Cancers that learn how to roam between hosts may gradually evolve into their own multicellular species.
2 months ago
Anonymous
to keep the population numbers in control.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>Is not bad because is... LE USEFUL
2 months ago
Anonymous
>dude what is that smell? >I'm burning? that's a surprise
isn't a world without pain wonderful?
2 months ago
Anonymous
Are you stupid? His training to shut out pain is what allowed him to perform that protest suicide against colonialism in the first place.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>and with removing the existence of pain, it removes all life, because pain is useful and that's why it exists.
That doesn't mean it's good or not bad. It's an undesirable/bad experience.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>undesireable/bad
you assume these are the same. remove "bad" and formulate an idea of why you believe it, without this assumption. your reasoning is circular.
2 months ago
Anonymous
What is undesirable is considered bad or at least morally bad. It's the same shit
2 months ago
Anonymous
what is undesirable in the moment can be good for you, doing something that puts you in danger can be morally good. freeing a criminal from prison is considered a morally bad act even though you are directly reducing that criminal's pain. you have to explain why undesirable means bad because it's not implied in the word, it's not the same thing.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>freeing a criminal from prison is considered a morally bad act
Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation, criminals who have served their sentence and/or have been found eligible for reduced sentence/parole have the RIGHT to be freed and people like you who keep treating freed people like they are criminals are the actual problem here.
2 months ago
Anonymous
you are deliberately avoiding the point
2 months ago
Anonymous
Your attitude toward people is what's morally bad.
2 months ago
Anonymous
Antinatalism is a negative ethic/morality. You get confused because in negative ethics what is undesirable is equal to bad. In clown ethics they are different
2 months ago
Anonymous
Antinatalism wants to remove the existence of pain, not the pain of existence.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>using an electric current to kill chickens and pigs in farms painlessly does't make the death suddenly better.
Yes it does, painless death is better than painful death.
2 months ago
Anonymous
killing them painlessly while taking away their entire lives and put them in farms - the exchange is shitty no matter how you look at it. That was the point.
Are you stupid? His training to shut out pain is what allowed him to perform that protest suicide against colonialism in the first place.
it's not about the monk, it's about the idea of what you get when you remove pain entirely. it's a defense mechanism. do I really have to explain this?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>it's not about the monk
Then why did you post a picture of someone who trained his whole life to ignore pain so he could make an effective protest against an oppressive government?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>effective protest
the mind of antinatalist consider burning yourself alive an effective form of protesting
2 months ago
Anonymous
>After the self-immolation, the US put more pressure on Diệm to re-open negotiations on the faltering agreement. Diệm had scheduled an emergency cabinet meeting at 11:30 a.m. on 11 June to discuss the Buddhist crisis which he believed to be winding down. Following Quảng Đức's death, Diệm canceled the meeting and met individually with his ministers. Acting US Ambassador to South Vietnam William Trueheart warned Nguyễn Đình Thuận, Diệm's Secretary of State, of the desperate need for an agreement, saying that the situation was "dangerously near breaking point" and expected Diệm would meet the Buddhists' five-point manifesto. United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk warned the Saigon embassy that the White House would publicly announce that it would no longer "associate itself" with the regime if this did not occur.[29] The Joint Communiqué and concessions to the Buddhists were signed on 16 June.
Yeah, effective.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>killing them painlessly while taking away their entire lives and put them in farms
That's a different topic. The people who pushed for painless death for animals want more than just painless death for them, but not everyone wants to be a vegan.
2 months ago
Anonymous
NTA but it's necessary to make the deer avoid the lion. Also, big cats don't eat their prey alive; they attack the jugular which results in near instant death. You should have went with something omnivorous like a bear but you're a moron anyway so...
How is cancer pain necessary, you stupid apes?
2 months ago
Anonymous
>anti-natalist pretends to be concerned by empathy but can't help himself from dehumanizing others
Lol
2 months ago
Anonymous
I'm simply insulting you. I didn't even mean to dehumanize you, you sound like a troony
2 months ago
Anonymous
>anti-natalist pretends to be motivated by empathy but reflexively dehumanizes others
Lol, moron.
2 months ago
Anonymous
It seems that you confuse empathy with respect. You're a dumb b***h
2 months ago
Anonymous
>homosexual anti-natalist with no self-awareness thinks his respect is worth anything
Lol! Stop, my sides.
Pleasure isn't as real as suffering. Pleasure is transient and superficial. Suffering is the real foundation of human existence. It's always present and never changes. You just throw some endorphins over it and get distracted for a brief moment. Satisfaction is having beers on a warm summer evening with an old friend. Pain is wageslaving for 80 years.
This is how I've felt since I was 5 years old.
natalism would be fine if I had unilateral veto power over who gets to procreate but until that happens anyone, anywhere who brings a child into the world is objectively evil.
>LIFE IS MISERY AND SUFFERING >ok, have a nice day >NOOOOOOO, THINGS ARE MAGICALLY DIFFERENT ONCE YOURE ALIVE >could you at least stop whining and trying to spread your mental illness then? >REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
I like how that's all they mostly resort to, as if they have said anything useful. no one is saying that all life is bad. but clearly this evolutionary darwinian mess we're in is causing a lot of issues. maybe AI as a life can better understand this and flip the script on evolution someday and establish an acceptable standard for life.
I like how that's all they mostly resort to, as if they have said anything useful. no one is saying that all life is bad. but clearly this evolutionary darwinian mess we're in is causing a lot of issues. maybe AI as a life can better understand this and flip the script on evolution someday and establish an acceptable standard for life.
It informs the rationale behind a subjective argument regarding quality of life. Simple as. Find a better cope for being such pathetic losers next time.
how does this fix the suffering in life? im not arguing about you personally you dumb frick. im not saying that parents are evil, but that it's probably a good idea to not have human offspring. you know given how awful life can get, it's not all that an unreasonable view to have. im not dogmatic about my antinatalism but you clearly are a dogmatic "natalist". grow the frick up, there are real issues in the world, and lot of those are rooted in our biology.
>how does this fix the suffering in life?
No one said it does, moron. It demonstrates the fact that anti-natalists are mentally deficient and everything they say when it comes to their subjective arguments is coloured by such. >projection about being a "hardcore natalist"
If I'm anything, I'm an anti-antinatalist because you guys are pathetic homosexuals. The only thing you get right is that the universe would be better without you.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>anti-antinatalist >t.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>anti-antisuffering
mfw
like it's one thing to say that im not an antinatalist because I don't think life is all that bleak, but this is no different than those "anti-vegan" types. lol.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>listens to Death Grips
Based.
antinatalism solves problems but not creating those problems in the first place. that's it. that's all there is to it. it's one method out of many to lessen the suffering in this world. but for some reason you get really mad at this.
>antinatalism solves problems but not creating those problems in the first place
Lol, sure moron. Stop trying to make others accountable for the fact you can't have sex.
As for me: it's Saturday night. Have fun with your circle jerk of misery homosexuals.
>he handwaves the fact the ideology he spreads has had a negative impact on the mental health of those that read his work.
Not really. In the preface to Human Predicament he says that his conclusions may hurt the feelings of those who read it, which is not an impediment to publishing it because in the end he affirms, in accordance with his well-known conclusions, that his book will do much more good than harm.
>tldr
I'm going to go practice making babies. Later loser.
2 months ago
Anonymous
>antinatalism solves problems but not creating those problems in the first place
The damage that antinatalism does is harmless in human terms. In terms of the damage that happens in the world, the damage that antinatalism produces is less than zero.
2 months ago
Anonymous
antinatalism solves problems but not creating those problems in the first place. that's it. that's all there is to it. it's one method out of many to lessen the suffering in this world. but for some reason you get really mad at this.
Now we know the autist that posts the PD psych research on the Benatar thread is just a projecting sociopath himself! lmao.
im really sorry that your Dad gave you "tough love" anon, you're probably a boomer, most people in your generation had to suffer under nasty ignorant parents like that. that wasn't real love btw, nor was it genuine in anyway. your father was a sick man, I wish you had a better childhood.
Antinatalism is not something you should wave in proselitism, its a choice so personal might as well be as personal as suicide itself, you take it and bear it with the dignity it deserves, you dont comment on it and by jove you dont force it or eveb suggest it unto others for you might end up creating more suffering instead of preventing it, people regret buying the wrong shade of color on a T-shirt now imagine depriving them of the ultimate biological goal, the one for which their brain is wired to strive, you might subject them to great anguish and despair in later years, if you dont want to have kids to avoid suffering we are free to chose but we must be careful to not turn it into a ego stroking "holier than thou" sofism.
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder.
This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact; it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview)
Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.
Refuted by depressive realism.
Most of it has to do with many of us cant have kids of our own due to the fact social skills are king in a high feminized society. If getting a woman pregnant was as easy as putting a coin into a vending machine most of us (I am however not, an antinatalist) wouldn't make these arguments in the first place.
>Benatar is right because i’m socially moronic
>implying anti-natalism isn’t an ideology based on validating depressed angsty teens or people on the same developmental level
All of you are spergs getting your egos stroked because this man said “life is shit because i am unable to keep up with society without doing anything about it”
Noone owes you shit, noones gonna give you shit for free, happiness doesnt just suddenly happen. Work on things, get hobbies, see products of your work. See progress. Get interested in shit other than just yourselves. It works, you’re just too scared to try it.
>See progress
Most antinatalists are antinatalists specifically because they are not seeing progress in their lives nor in society.
Nah. They say it's vain because everyone will die anyway. And the sacrifice is for a sacrifice or in other words trillions are tortured so that other trillions can be tortured and so on until everyone dies.
I'm not seeing progress in my life. I have a job but it doesn't pay enough to buy myself a home, I'm middle aged and still renting. I apply but nobody responds. After bills and rent and groceries I don't have enough money left to feel comfortable. I don't want to have children while I'm poor.
Anti-natalism as an idea is worth engaging with. To intellectually triumph over anti-natalism is a mark of maturity.
You're just ad homing. if the antinatalists were the majority of humans, and this study truly represented their average psychology, then they'd be making the same studies about the cheery minority and their "broken" rose tinted world view.
of course it doesn't mean that either party is wrong. of course life can be good, but clearly it's bad if not awful for many others too. ultimately the good in life, even if it was more abundant than the bad, would not justify the bad.
if the cost of 5 million happy people was one burn victim (as a side effect) then that's one burn victim too many.
anyone that says otherwise is evil and should suck a big fat wiener to compensate for their evil.
>doesn't read the blurb anon attached which explains why it's not an adhom
>just cries about being alive while voicing resentment towards those that aren't mentally deficient sad sacks like himself
Lol
>it's not an ad hom
>we're not saying this is why you're wrong
> but we're still going to bring it up as if it sounds like an argument
yea frick outta here kiddo
>anti-natalism requires a (subjective) quality of life argument that affirms the negative
>it turns out people who affirm this have a preponderance toward mental illness and personality disorder
>also, surrounding literature indicates they're less equipped to weigh the arguments being presented
It's not an adhom. This is an adhom: you're a whiny homosexual that also happens to be a moron. It's also a fact.
here is a fact, billions and trillions are suffering, their suffering is real. but you ignore all of that.
instead you get pissed at people that point out that maybe we should do something about the negatives in life. all you have is insults, you cowardly weasel.
>but you ignore all of that.
No I don't. What I do is make fun of morons fetishizing the suffering of others into a nonsensical ideology as a means to cope with how pathetic and small they are.
great, keep toying with that stereotype in your head. how dare people not have kids in this ginger garden world.
>stereotype in your head
>how dare people not have kids in this ginger garden world
Imagine lacking the awareness required not to write those two things back to back. Lol, no you.
im sorry, I didn't know that we did in fact live in gingerbread land. those Chinese rape victims though? nah, must be my distorted view.
gotta say though. they do sound a bit too whiny.
good read overall.
how very empathic of you, mr "mentally healthy and stable person". I would never call you a sad sack anything but you have no problem looking down on anyone it seems.
>NO YOU
Lol, anti-natalists are pathetic morons. If they'd been given tough love as a kid maybe they'd be less narcissistic and wouldn't feel the need to impotently try to convince their betters reality conforms to their worldview which is informed by their proclivity towards mental illness and personality disorder.
You guys are mindless ideologues and there's really no point arguing with you. All I can do is point out how simpering and pathetic you are to others while enticing you to betray the fact you're not motivated by empathy but by a sick fascination with misery. Be less pathetic, please.
what a projecting moron, "tough love" is what gives people personality disorder. I bet you're very low on the empathy spectrum yourself.
most normal healthy people just argue that not all life is bad, I don't disagree on that point, as there is mutual respect in the exchange. but you clearly love to project.
>NO YOU (again)
It's been shown over and over in previous threads that anti-natalist logic comports with morally horrendous outcomes. It's been established that anti-natalists have a preponderance toward mental illness and personality disorder which inform their subjective arguments regarding quality of life. There's an interview with Benatar ITT that shows he's unstable and that he handwaves the fact the ideology he spreads has had a negative impact on the mental health of those that read his work.
You homosexuals don't have a leg to stand on. All you can do is focus on misery and suffering and try to compel others to do the same. It's pathetic. Do better.
I don't know, it seems very based on Benatar's part. Show empathy for others, share their pain.
The only israelite with empathy.
yes we're pathetic because we suggest a potential fix for the problems in life. no one is saying that we must force people to not have kids. but it is a potential solution, and there is nothing wrong with that approach. but it's just one approach.
for some reason you foam at the mouth mr mentally stable at the idea of some people not having kids.
>we're pathetic because we suggest a potential fix for the problems in life
You don't though. You try to convince others that life isn't worth living in an attempt to spread your misery to others.
>it's just one approach
Pick a less pathetic ideology to subscribe to next time.
>You don't though. You try to convince others that life isn't worth living
No. but you're not arguing in good faith so why do I even bother.
>he handwaves the fact the ideology he spreads has had a negative impact on the mental health of those that read his work.
Not really. In the preface to Human Predicament he says that his conclusions may hurt the feelings of those who read it, which is not an impediment to publishing it because in the end he affirms, in accordance with his well-known conclusions, that his book will do much more good than harm.
>This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact
lol. they can't be dismissed at all due to just this. normalgay moron.
psychiatry as a field is mostly subjective biased bullshit anyways. it's mainly a political tool to used to gaslight and label your political enemies as mentally unwell, and right now it's the left whose in charge. unfortunately what ever good that could've come out of it to actually help people was poisoned long ago. but that's a whole other topic, enough about secular priests.
Lmao that's sad
You'd think a Machiavellian wouldn't loathe his own life so much that he'd project that onto the rest of humanity
Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel. No wonder he mostly avoids interviews:
>they go for a walk in the park
>interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved
>Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way)
>Benatar literally starts crying and basically says "life is unacceptable"
>interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)
Benatar is pretty unstable. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.
Copy-pasted post
>incel, er sorry, "anti-natalist" in a spam thread crying that posts are recycled
Kek
Wow he's literally me
Refuted by depressive realism
>those high dark triad traits or depression are less well-equipped to judge the truth of arguments about anti-natalism
That's specifically addressed in the excerpt.
>Benatar, in line with the depressive realism hypothesis, claims that some cases of depression may help to remove a person’s rose-tinted glasses – the optimism bias hardwired in all of us – that makes life seem better than it actually is. Cognitive biases are complex. It is hard to know when either a positivity or negativity bias is at play in our judgements. However, as Benatar points out in an essay for Aeon, “empirical evidence of various cognitive biases, most importantly an optimism bias, suggests that overestimation [of the good] is the more common error.”
>https://www.samwoolfe.com/2020/06/antinatalism-and-depression.html
Again, this is specifically addressed in the paper. The authors state that their research wasn't guided by answering such a question (i.e. is the average adherent of anti-natalism better or less well equipped, due to their mental illness, to weigh anti-natalist beliefs) BUT given the literature surrounding the subject matter they conclude they are not. Also, Bentar is an obvious sperg whose work causes harm:
.
These are facts, anon. Find a better way of coping than pretending all of reality conforms to your own defects. You'll be healthier.
Meh, but what about Benatar's homosexual pernicious arguments? He has too much evidence to support him anti-natalism there.
Benatar is unable to prove such and retreats to saying it's "vaguely true" when pressed. He also tries to pretend the asymmetry argument isn't central to his argument whenever people question its validity (and Benatards will parrot this assertion instead of responding to arguments that situate it as such).
>asymmetry argument
Quality of life argument*
Honestly, it doesn't matter if he's wrong about that. His homosexual perniciosus arguments support his philosophy too well to refute it.
>Honestly, it doesn't matter if he's wrong about that.
It does because the asymmetry argument is a tautology that can be interpreted differently and/or rejected. The quality of life argument attempts to give gravity to it but is ultimately subjective. And again, Benatard admits he can't prove it concretely and retreats to the idea that it's "vaguely true" (which isn't good enough).
Intersubjectively talking he's right. Morally talking the homosexual pernicious must die.
>Bentar is an obvious sperg whose work causes harm
if you admit that Benatar causes harm by merely just mentioning the negatives in life but then you moralgay about it, then you're just being a straight up moron. you're saying, essentially that we shouldn't try to solve those problems (or even acknowledge their severity). similar argument that priests used to make about people needing God to be good. shoving our head in the sand.
I don't think that's a good method as it didn't workout for Christian medieval europe very well.
>mental illness is my superpower
Lol
>Depressive realism is a hypothesis developed by the psychologists Lauren Alloy and Lyn Yvonne Abramson in 1988; it essentially states that depression may afford an individual a more accurate view of the world than the non-depressed.
>Or in the words of comedian Drew Michael: “Depression is a medical condition where you see things for what they are.”
>anti-natalists also get the most pussy
how do we keep winning bros?
>but you're neurodivergent!
>I can't take you seriously you must be a complete normalgay like me that doesn't question reality not one bit!
>also, you're Chad!
>that's right, you have a Chad personality
Appeal to authority.
>but the paper doesn't say that they're wron...
what's the point of bringing it up then? how does it add to the discussion? if I point out your limp dick does that mean that you're wrong about something? I mean, I suppose it doesn't mean that you're wrong, but I just wanted everyone to know that research revealed that you have a limp penis. just saying. not ad homing or anything but just saying that it might have something to do with your autism.
is this actually the argument he makes in the book? because if so that's quite 'tarded
same gay
I am the last anon
I am anti-natalism but that doesn't mean I'm an anti-natalist
I don't think you can make the jump from natalism is wrong to birth is bad
Does this apply to israelites as well or only to the goyim?
Take a wild guess.
Works on my machine 😉
What hardware are you running?
>Year after year after year after year.
You need to have a nice day, OP. Do it now. Don't delay another day. It's only going to get worse, right?
No, things cannot get worse because they always were and always will be beyond worse.
I'm am antinatalist but I personally think Benatars book is pretty bad. Firstly the axiological asymmetry argument doesn't make sense. He compares the absences of goods and bads under different conditions (one person affecting and one 'objective') which produces the asymmetry in the first place (Julio Cabera wrote an excellent essay making the same point)., which means we are left with the quality of life argument - which is of course essentially just an opinion. It's subjective. "I think life is bad." Now I happen to agree with his take but it won't persuade the life lovers, but regardless people from the Buddha to Schopenhauer have made the same argument, using far better means and better speech to do so. And his attempt to "science the shit out of" antinatalism by bringing up depressive realism and Pollyannaism is just cringe. This isn't really a "scientific" philosophy - it's fundamentally about opinions, viewpoints, it's a subjective evaluation about the worth of life.
I'm not sure it's even something (antinaralism) that you could *argue* someone into. I see it as something borne out of my disposition a product of my own (lack of) enjoyment of life.
And in terms if getting others to change the behaviour of procreating - a nerdy book isn't going to do it! People respond to incentives. Give them tax relief for not having kids, make it some way materially benefit people to remain childfree and only then you will impact birth rates. And if you look at shithole countries what is the number 1 predictor of lowering birth rates? Female access to education/financial independence. When a woman is tied to a man for her money and security, she is trapped in a position where he can frick her with impunity. Producing these horrific explosions in population such as in India and Nigeria and Congo etc. But in developed countries where women can make their kwn money and get educated such as Nordic countries, South Korea etc? They choose to have far fewer children, or none at all.
Now personally I think its a bad thing to be born but I have no real argument against someone who says "I'm glad I was born, I enjoy life". That is their subjective evaluation of their own life and I am not so arrogant as to say that my own (opposite) subjective judgment trumps there's, or somehow makes theirs wrong, or is more "true" or whatever. I could make an argument about risk, unnecessary risk, the potential harm one puts their child in by having them, etc. But personally I don't really think it's a knock down argument. I don't have one. Antinaralism is just something I feel very strongly about. I won't procreate. I wish I were never born. For the sake of those who will be born and who will suffer, I wish others wouldn't procreate either. It won't happen though. The behaviour of other people is almost entirely out of my control.
You have depression and should probably find social outlets that benefit your physical health.
I mean, I care about the physical pain of sentient beings. Because I have experienced it, people and animals close to me have experienced it. And it's very fricked up. Every day there is unimaginable agony among these beings and for what? And then inevitably die. All those “sacrifices” will be in vain in the end anyway. Being sad and angry (even though my life is fine) for them seems completely reasonable to me. Tell me why i'm wrong.
Why don't you have a nice day? Is it because life is worth living?
Tell why i'm wrong, cuck
Because you sound like a sad sack homosexual who retreats to narcissism in order to cope with his depression. You pretend that it's empathy but the reality is you're wallowing in a warped worldview that you think justifies you're resentment. It's pathetic.
Nah
Happiness doesn't matter. Because for you to stay happy, many must be tortured.
Yep. There's a reason several of the steps, like 3 out of 10, in the WikiHow for anti-natalism are devoted to instructing you gays not to be annoying.
There is unimaginable joy around as well, you just choose not to see it
My life is great and I don't want to commit suicide. Life in general is not only not worth living, it is unacceptable.
So your life is great? Worth living? What makes your life so much different from 'life in general'?
The chickens, cows, etc. that keep me alive did not have a good time. Physical pain is bad, every second a being is torn apart in raw/pure agony. That my life is good is an individual good and does not matter on a moral scale, stupid ape.
Well you have you asked those cows? No? then shut up
I work in a slaughterhouse, you stupid ape. Even pregnant cows are killed. They feel a lot of pain (for several seconds) in the slaughter process.
You don't even know what the frick you are talking about
Elaborate or kys
stfu homosexual
They answer that by regurgitating Benatard's analogy of sitting through a bad theatre performance. It's a stupid comparison for multiple reasons: it's trivial compared to living a life, it's trivial compared to the supposed suffering they pretend concerns them, lots of people would just walk out (sunk cost fallacy), it betrays the negative ideation that contaminates every last part of their worldview (i.e. find something to enjoy in it and let that be your focus), etc.
The bottomline is that there's no reasoning with anti-natalists because they're not reasonable people. They're ideologically possessed midwits with psychological disorders.
You sound quite mad, like profoundly mad at thid particular portion of people who in your view are nothing but ridiculous zealots, why is that?
>projection
I'm not your parents reflecting on how much of a failure their kid became, anon.
>(i.e. find something to enjoy in it and let that be your focus), etc.
Antinatalism is a ethics philosophy which concludes that the right thing to do is not to procreate and ultimately exterminate all sentient life. Going to be part of the enjoyment of life as you mention is simply a desire that does not belong to any philosophy and is irrelevant morally speaking. Kys
mad normie
NTA but Because it would bring greater pain to people that do care about me. When they die I’ll probably check out.
>Every day there is unimaginable agony among these beings and for what?
You're being a pussy. Don't wallow in your depression. Seek out a social activity that involves physical fitness.
>Caring about others is depression
Holy kek
Anti-natalists don't care about others. They're mentally ill midwits with personality disorders.
You're a normie and you should post on reddit
You're a crying homosexual who should shut up and have a nice day.
Benatar never suport depressive realism though. Pollyannais yes.
the fact that wealthy countries with women's rights have less children says a lot more about the nature of women than it does about the nature of life.
Death cult. OP is a cultist.
>the israelite is right you know
how about this for a matrix
>life is not worth living
>therefore I should kill myself
vs
>life is worth living
>therefore I should share the gift of life
I'm a naturally loving and caring person, and there's nothing I would want more than to be a parent, but I can't justify the act. And for me, it's about admitting to my own ignorance. I have no way to really determine whether life is a good or bad or neutral thing overall, so it seems insane to me to think that I have the right to just take a chance on that cosmic existential uncertainty completely on behalf of another person. It seems that to be a parent you need to either be unthinking or lack all humility, maybe both.
Interesting. I know that my children will dominate life and advance the species so I feel that it would be an injustice to the world if I didn’t have children.
The act of bringing someone to the world is ultimately a selfish thing.
No, you're just a depressive autist who confuses the fact it takes people to make a baby with the idea it's selfish.
>sacrifice 18 years of your own life for someone else
>selfish
lol
>Taking care of a child for 18 years that you created yourself is not selfish
Correct.
>lacking consideration for others; concerned chiefly with one's own personal profit or pleasure.
Procreation is in order to serve their own procreative and related interests.
>lacking consideration for others
but you're considerate for another human, for 18 years. how are you this autistic
You created him. Your care was unnecessary in first place.
>Your care was unnecessary in first place.
Yes it was? Do you guys just think in circular logic?
>you're just a depressive autist who confuses the fact it takes people to make a baby with the idea it's selfish (
)
Called it.
Not him, but it is selfish. However, I'm just going to outright assume you consider selfishness as inherently-negative which is your issue.
>but it is selfish
Nuh uh
Randtard detected.
Yes?
Women don't even love their kids. Kids are just a tool for them in order to smother them, play the helicopter mom, and delude themselves they are not loathsome. Women can replace biological or non-biological fathers in an heartbeat.
>I've never been loved by a woman so I cope by trying to convince others it doesn't exist
Sad.
not really and I'd even suggest women only exist so the species doesn't croak.
Hey, feel free not to reproduce. Sounds great for us all.
>stop having children goy
>walking home
>think of the earth
>the universe
>feeling of awe overwhelms me
>appreciate existence
>tfw being
benatard btfo
Anti-natalism isn't complicated. There are basically two core arguments you have to contend with: the asymmetry argument and the quality of life argument. The asymmetry argument is flawed methodologically (it can't be proven; even Benatar admits it's only "vaguely true") and the quality of life argument is subjective (and when you take into account the proclivity anti-natalists have toward mental illness and personality disorder the fact their conclusions are rooted in a negativity bias becomes obvious).
The real problem is that anti-natalism is so simplistic at its core that it's easy to become ideologically possessed by it. One can give well-thought out reasons to reject the asymmetry argument and anti-natalists will just retreat to asserting its basic form which is tautological. You can explain the subjectivity of the quality of life argument but anti-natalists with just do one of two things: they'll insist that it's objective without responding to detailed arguments as to why it's subjective and/or minimize its importance in regard to their position as a whole (note that for the latter you can also make a good faith argument as to why it's central to accepting their conclusion and they will just insist it is not without directly addressing what you say).
That's the problem with these threads. When you have a discussion with an anti-natalist you're speaking to someone who has self-indoctrinated into an ideology they believe cannot be disproven. They can't understand when their core principle is being criticized so they will deflect by asserting a tautology while attempting to monopolize how outcomes related to it must be interpreted. Even after you point out this behaviour to them they won't address it because ideologues are incapable of arguing in good faith. They get BTFO every single time they make one of these stupid threads but will always come back again and fall into the same insufferable pattern.
Wrote so much to say nothing
All your retorts are implications that are just as subjective as those assertions by anti-natalists you refer to,
Speak clearly, moron
If you want to appeal to formal logic, then show your truth tables, or explain your arguments as an intuitive thread of thought
I'm really just writing this to call you a moron for writing like an academic fart — saying nothing
>not a single argument
>no you
>spergs it's not his fault he's filtered
I'd say "touch grass" but nature makes anti-natalists meltdown.
No, he isn't.
>depressed irl chuddy wishes he were never born
Then have a nice day, results in the same outcome. If you really believe God doesn't exist, which is the foundation of the belief that it is better to have never been, life after death will be nothingness. So what are you waiting for? Do it. Board quality will increase drastically.
I believe in God, and I think it's a sin to selfishly bring souls into a world filled with so many horrific things. You ever heard about the case of the autistic boy around 10 years old who was tortured for weeks by his siblings because they believed he was a witch? He was only a child, and yet he was begging for death by the end. The potential for agony is sky-high, while all our greatest joys are always mixed with bittersweet melancholy.
Stop being such a homosexual and man the frick up. Jesus Christ anti-natalists are pathetic.
>man the frick up
Is this what you would say to that little boy? I do man up (in other words, cope), but I wouldn't have to if I was never born. And I don't see any excuse to impose this need to cope with the horrific nature of our reality on yet another entirely new person. Every one of them figuring it all out all over again from the start, billions of times. So tiresome. And for what?
>Is this what you would say to that little boy? I do man up (in other words, cope), but I wouldn't have to if I was never born. And I don't see any excuse to impose this need to cope with the horrific nature of our reality on yet another entirely new person. Every one of them figuring it all out all over again from the start, billions of times. So tiresome. And for what?
>just look at the heckin nature
>meltdown seeing pictures of nature
LOL!
>but what about my superficial urbanite perception of le beauty of nature!?
In every one of those picturesque vistas, thousands of God's creatures are busy eating each other alive.
>In every one of those picturesque vistas, thousands of God's creatures are busy eating each other alive.
I never understood why you people are comparing suffering of a big animal to suffering of insects that are naturally meant to live one week at most and lay 1,000 eggs, you could split them in half and they still act like nothing happened and the 2 parts of the insect will run in different directions. they don't have the nervous system to suffer, they don't need it
Pic related was an antinatalist and actually killed himself.
https://vitrifyher.wordpress.com/2019/12/19/antinatalism-in-purgatory/
>I’m an antinatalist. I think it’s unforgivable to bring new people into this world given that there is suffering. The thing is that lately I’ve been thinking and feeling that people aren’t real. This would partially solve the problem of evil. There is just my suffering and everyone else is a simulation designed to spite me. This should cause me to not feel so antinatalist since the breeders are disgusting alien mockeries of a true human being, namely myself. Yet somehow I still feel very antinatalist. When I see children with their parents I am disgusted at the entire concept. They are probably just facets of the simulation and not souls brimming with the inner light of awareness like myself. And yet they still move me enough to cause disgust. I suppose that was the intention of the designer(s), to create something that appeared so real that it was actually disturbing. Dr. Miller says I have some sort of syndrome after finding out about my solipsism. I think he’s an imbecile who deserves to be burned on a stake. But out of my bodhisattva-like compassion I would instead grant him a consciousness and send him to heaven forever.
This guy looks like me. But I'm not gay, I don't have suicidal desires. And the girl I liked didn't drive me crazy.
just kys and pain will end and you won't have to be mad about existing anymore
> life bad because pain bad
What if I like pain?
The exception does not make the rule.
You are less enlightened that a pack of worms.
Why i'm wrong. Intersubjectively speaking, physical pain is bad, something undesirable. Just because you're a masochistic b***h or you enjoy/don't care about other people's pain doesn't mean it's not a bad thing.
Pain is a biological function to tell you something is endangering your well-being. It's supposed to activate yourself to do something against the suffering. And because we have pain centers in our bodies that we literally need in order to survive, existing itself is not desirable? You must elaborate on this or your whole theory is nonsensical.
>Thing is'nt bad because is... LE NATURAL/MECHANISM OF SURVIVING
Kys
So existence is bad because pain. But existence also has pleasure, what makes you think the pain outweighs the pleasure? If pleasure is 1 and pain is -1, the absolute value of both is completely equal even if one is negative and the other positive.
For pleasure to persist, there must be a lot of pain involved. For a lion to survive or a human. Eons of weaker beings will be sacrificed in agony. And worse still, neither lions nor humans are exempt from torture. There is chronic pain, there is no chronic pleasure.
The pain lasts longer, the pleasure is fleeting.
There is much, much more pain than pleasure in the world.
I forgot the pic
> There is much, much more pain than pleasure in the world
You have no proof for this.
NTA but does something have to be provable to be true?
If you want to form a cohesive argument out of it and make pronouncements based on it. Yeah. Prove it.
Can you prove your very point?
>I'm the one making the case for anti-natalism but you need to defend
Lol, onus is on you. If you can't prove something that's integral to your argument you should shut the frick up and stop boring everyone with your whinge.
>If you can't prove something that's integral to your argument you should shut the frick up and stop boring everyone with your whinge.
Can you prove I should do this?
>can you prove there has to be a basis to what I'm saying in order to put it forward as valid
Lol, moron.
>do things that are true need to be proven to be true
>yes
>can you prove that?
>*brain malfunctioning* derrrr u a moron
>does something have to be provable to be true
(If you want to form a cohesive argument and make pronouncements based on it.) Yeah.
>can you prove that statement
It's your onus. (If you can't prove something that's integral to your argument you should stop being such a crying homosexual.)
>uh....uh....prove that!
You're asking that I prove you have to have a basis for what you're saying (in order to take it as valid). Holy shit you're dumb.
>YOU'RE HAVING A MELTDOWN
I put the arguments in parentheses (that means brackets, moron). You're a moron.
>(If you want to form a cohesive argument and make pronouncements based on it.) Yeah.
Still waiting for you to prove this. Simply declaring it isn't an argument.
>It's your onus. (If you can't prove something that's integral to your argument you should stop being such a crying homosexual.)
Prove it's my onus. Prove that I need to prove something if it's part of my argument. If you can't then stop acting like a whiny b***h.
>You're asking that I prove you have to have a basis for what you're saying (in order to take it as valid). Holy shit you're dumb.
I wanted you to prove that something that is true has to be provable. You have failed to do so.
You've proven you're an idiot who can't follow basic logic. Congrats.
Unfortunately I'm forced by your own standard to disregard all your whiny declarations because you have continuously failed to prove a single thing. Sad!
>If P then X
>P is not demonstrated
>Therefore X is unknown
Hence the prior arguments:
>A cohesive argument from which a conclusion may be drawn requires a provable premise (i.e. the conclusion follows the premise)
>If you can't prove a premise that's integral to your argument you can't make pronouncements based on the conclusion (i.e. an unproven premise means an argument is not even logically invalid: it's a non-starter)
>The premise is the basis of your argument and your conclusion is invalid if this cannot be proven (i.e. the truth of the premise entails the truth of the conclusion)
I don't want to argue against anti-natalism with you because it's best if you don't breed. Wait, who are we kidding? You'd have to be able to make eye contact with a woman for that!
The question was whether all true things are provably true. To answer the affirmative you would have to show that there are no true things that cant be proven. This is what you did not do.
>I don't want to argue against anti-natalism with you because it's best if you don't breed. Wait, who are we kidding? You'd have to be able to make eye contact with a woman for that!
I smiled but this is Facebook boomer tier.
>The question was whether all true things are provably true.
No, the question is whether or not your anti-natalist conclusions are based on a well-founded premise. They are not so you engaged in a semantic argument over the idea of "true" which you lost because you're an idiot.
I didn't make a single post on anti-natalism or the alternative in this entire thread. I asked about truth and provability. That was all.
Cool.
I accept your concession.
Naw, I thought you were just a run of the mill moron but it turned out you were just a pseud.
>the seething stage has begun
Ah, who am I kidding. You've been seething this entire time.
Whatever you want to believe, anon.
>he keeps coming back
I totally believe you.
Cool.
Now kiss.
Benatar's human pernicious arguments.
Is this entire thread copy-pasta? I could swear I've seen all of this before...
Genuine question, why is it wrong to feel this way? Because I feel like this every day.
>Mfw some anon says that nature/the world/ life is beauty.
>Mfw some anon says that nature/the world/ life is beauty.
Beauty is an homosexual illusion for morons and cowards.
Ignoring the horrors of our world won't make them go away
>t. whiny homosexual who blames the universe because he sucks
Keep coping
>coping
Your team:
. Lol.
How is he wrong?
>I COPE...I DON'T WANT OTHERS TO HAVE TO COPE! (
Is this what you would say to that little boy? I do man up (in other words, cope), but I wouldn't have to if I was never born. And I don't see any excuse to impose this need to cope with the horrific nature of our reality on yet another entirely new person. Every one of them figuring it all out all over again from the start, billions of times. So tiresome. And for what?)
>THE HORRORS OF THE WORLD (
)
>you're being a melodramatic homosexual (
)
>C-C-COPE!
>lol
You're not the sharpest knife in the drawer.
Keep coping
Nietzsche considered suffering a good.
Schopy too.
>Using Nietzsche to prove your antiatalist point
Lmao.
I wasn't proving any antinatalist point, moron.
No shit, lol.
moron
Good luck with pretending reality is fricked up instead of living a good life. I'm sure that attitude will make you attractive to others and not result in perennial loneliness and depression.
Rose-glassed homosexuals like ~~*((You*~~) are incapable of moral perspectives, much less honor.
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
Keep on living your best life! Shouldn't be too hard, pretty low bar by the looks of things.
No, ignore the horribleness of the world and concentrate on looking at the landscapes and... LE BEAUTY.
It is the poorest perspective to see the world. Stop coping or kys
>No, ignore the horribleness of the world and concentrate on looking at the landscapes and... LE BEAUTY.
Sounds great. Will do, anon.
>Good luck with pretending reality is fricked up instead of living a good li-ACK!
https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html
>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.
>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?
>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.
Benatar makes a little comment on this in Human Predicament. First he admits that antinatalism will only work on a small scale. He affirms that it is insanely optimistic to think about achieving that. Even if it were achieved, many years would pass in which more eons will suffer, it's indecent (for him) to sacrifice our lives for those of the future, and finally he adds that it would only be an opiate and not an eradication of suffering.
>Personal life
>Not much is known about Benatar's personal life as he deliberately guards his privacy. He has held antinatalist views since his childhood.[14]
>Benatar is vegan, and has taken part in debates on veganism.[15] He has argued that humans are "responsible for the suffering and deaths of billions of other humans and non-human animals. If that level of destruction were caused by another species we would rapidly recommend that new members of that species not be brought into existence."[16][17] He has also argued that the outbreak of zoonotic diseases, such as the COVID-19 pandemic,[18] is often the result of how humans mistreat animals.[19]
>Benatar is an atheist and has stated that he has no children of his own.[20][21] He is ethnically israeli and he has criticized the “regressive left” at institutions such as the University of Cape Town for creating an environment hostile to israelites. He has also criticized South Africa for its increasing willingness to distance itself from liberal democracies and cozy up to autocracies, and in particular has criticized South Africans who sympathize with Hamas.[22][23]
lol lmao even
>He's right you know
>142 / 19 / 1
Stop with this shit book. Replace these threads with Zapffe threads because he's way more convincing in his writing, or even Mainlander or Cioran idk.
>hasn't killed himself
He died five minutes ago.
Anti-natalism is a grift right?
I have never met a single one IRL
>Anti-natalism is a grift right?
It's a grift, it's a cope incels latch onto, and it's a simplistic worldview emotionally immature pseuds buy into.
>Anti-natalism is a grift right?
It's like New Atheism fad of the late 00s.
Simply asking an anti-natalist "why haven't you killed yourself" btfos their whole moronic view
It should be the other way around, antinatalists should ask others why they don't commit suicide. Well, it is better to sacrifice life than honor and morality. People are a terrible moral error and they should commit suicide
Yes of course, we should buy the anti-natalist books, make them rich, then kill ourselves
Can't see any issues with that philosophy
Yes, kys
Yes of course, but not before giving you tons of money :^)
If anti-natalists actually believed in what they wrote, there should be no alive anti-natalists and they should've gone out in a mass murder spree
Of course they didn't, because it's a grift
Benatar basically says that violence always only brings more violence and this is evident in the history of the world. He says that the guys who cause genocides only do more damage instead of reducing it. I don't quite understand that
>benatar is ethnically israeli
My life is awesome, actually. Sorry you're mentally ill or whatever.
Did David Benatar kill his mother for bringing him into the world?
He thinks that they (mother and fathar) didn't even know what they were doing, he tells his readers that it is no reason to hate their parents.
>samegay thread
typical benatargay astroturfing
>life is... Le good!!
>hehe stupid bug I will rip off your legs and watch tou whrite in "pain" for my own amusement
>im so happy and empathetic unlike those anti natalist looneys
Incredibly interesting to see this shades sadism, so subtle and delicate, there is a certain beauty in minds like yours, like watching a malformed yet functional limb.
A lot of projection in one post.
It's fricking terrifying. They don't care about others at all.
While I can't condone that guy, calling his mind malformed is just a pot calling the kettle black. You memed yourself into willing sterilit; very comical affliction. Which is unfortunate because at least for a time, your type (moralistic, compassionate, pessimistic, intelligent) will be gradually selected out of the genepool.
I'm sure it'll re-emerge sometime.
All sentient beings are organic garbage. And even if there were... LE SUPERIOR GENETICS
The majority of the population are subhumans who reproduce worse than rabbits.
>All sentient beings are organic garbage.
There's still different types. And it's fun to classify them.
>And even if there were... LE SUPERIOR GENETICS
Some genes are objectively better than others. But it does depend on the situation.
>The majority of the population are subhumans who reproduce worse than rabbits.
That's a constant. It has been before us, and will after us. One still has to try.
>While I can't condone that guy
is it so hard to agree there's a difference between insect suffering and animal suffering? they don't have a brain and a nervous system, you can't project your own moral system like the spider is losing a leg out of his 8 legs, the same as a person's pain losing a leg, or a dog.
bad, good, suffering, concepts only exists for us
A leg is still a leg.
Have you ever been an insect? Why are you so confident about this? This is just as dumb as people thinking fish can't feel pain because they don't scream when you cut them.
>Why are you so confident about this?
because all pain and suffering has a very clear purpose. You feel hunger when you have to eat, you feel fear when you have to run and are in danger, you have nerves to tell you when to stop an action that could harm you. Insects work by laying many eggs while they sacrifice things like self-preservation, you have thousands of them that die but if 10% of those lay eggs, they make another tens of thousands and so on.
pain and suffering isn't "le bad" and there's no black and white state you can call "pain" and "pleasure" like Benatar thinks
Intersubjectively speaking, pain is something undesirable and consequently bad. Nature, ethics/morality and survival mechanisms are completely different things. Just because it is natural or a survival mechanism does not directly mean that it is a good or bad thing.
>because all pain and suffering has a very clear purpose.
Not always fricking moron. Not even the pain of childbirth is. But so that your ape-head understands it, I will tell you a simple example: Is all the pain that a deer receives when a lion devours it alive necessary for the lion to satisfy its hunger?
NTA but it's necessary to make the deer avoid the lion. Also, big cats don't eat their prey alive; they attack the jugular which results in near instant death. You should have went with something omnivorous like a bear but you're a moron anyway so...
Is all the pain he receives while being devoured so that the deer avoids the lion?
Even if it were true to say that all pain is necessary, it is moronic.
>Is all the pain he receives while being devoured so that the deer avoids the lion?
Again, lions are big cats and take their prey out as quickly as possible. They don't devour their prey alive. You're thinking of bears, moron.
>Also, big cats don't eat their prey alive; they attack the jugular which results in near instant death
>instant death
However, in no documentary I have seen does this happen. The prey always writhes in agony while being eaten
That's because you're mentally ill and have a personality disorder which flavors your view of reality. Sorry, not our problem so stop trying to make it so. Get over yourself and stop being a whiny homosexual. Simple as.
>you're a sociopath for caring about the welfare of animals
Yea I can definitely see how sociopathic antinatalists really are
>anti-natalists are motivated by empathy and not mental illness informed by a sick fascination with misery
Lol
>don't look goyim!
>ignore the suffering goy!
>look! an ice cream cone, go consume!
>DUDE THEY DIE INSTANTLY... BELIEVE ME BRO
Lmao keep coping, moron
?si=KdHlfQduJOmnRuDA
They do if we're talking about big cats. Animals like hyenas or bears are known to devour their prey while it's still alive.
Anyway, sorry that going outside gives you an existential crisis. Must be tough being such a pathetic homosexual.
>Also, big cats don't eat their prey alive
>They do if we're talking about big cats.
You moron
>DUDE THEY DIE INSTANTLY
>They do if we're talking about big cats
Lol, when you're not too busy being a miserable little homosexual crying about being alive, work on your reading comprehension. Or, better yet: have a nice day. Deeds not words, pussy.
The video proves you wrong. You're even more moronic for standing your ground.
>one video confirms the entire hunting strategy of felids
Again, big cats hunt by going for the jugular and killing their prey. Reasons for this include: energy conservation (cats are ambush predators) and protecting themselves from injury. However, pack animals like Hyenas (who use the same throat attack strategy...there's a technical term for it but I'd have to look it up) will start devouring their prey while it's alive. They're a better example of the non-point you homosexuals are belaboring but an even better one is an omnivore such as a bear.
Again, sorry being alive makes you miserable but you could change that. Sad thing is the type of simpering homosexual who would subscribe to anti-natalisn is too much of a pussy to actually act on it.
>big cats hunt by going for the jugular and killing their prey
Well, it is clear that big cats do eat their prey alive, not always, but they do.
>it happens sometimes!
Lol, k. Use a better example next time (and there sadly will be a next time because you pathetic gays devote your lives to attempting to spread your mental defects onto others).
I never said they always did it anyway. I said they did, which is true.
You responded to a moderately detailed description of hunting strategies by posting a YouTube video and pretending I argued it never happens. You're moronic.
Nah. I never doubted it happened, but I thought you were denying that they weren't eaten alive.
>I thought
Liar, lol.
Nah
the removal of pain has very clear negative consequences, using an electric current to kill chickens and pigs in farms painlessly does't make the death suddenly better.
Life is above your logic and your little ego, and your entire system of thought is an illusion that only creates more weakness, more confusion, more questions.
and of course you people talk about lions killing other animals but never about lions getting killed by a pack of hyenas
antinatalism is irrelevant, a failed idea, because you larp as being above life itself and judging it, in reality the problem is with you, not life.
>we can't judge life because we're not God!
I guess you won't judge a serial killer because you don't have absolute perfect knowledge.
and anitnatalism isn't a failed anything, as long as there are antinatalists around.
>but never about lions getting killed by a pack of hyenas
they're victims too, you dimwit.
who said anything about god? it was about your criteria of judgement, how you assume pain is bad because it makes you suffer, but that's your ego talking. and your ego isn't that important
>they're victims too, you dimwit.
it was to show you how violence in nature has a purpose, and pain can as easily be inflicted on the lion. you can't take pain away from existence and expect a better outcome
Why pain isn't bad? Intersubjectively talking is
pain only has subjective use, and it's very useful
and with removing the existence of pain, it removes all life, because pain is useful and that's why it exists.
How is cancer pain useful? How is cancer pain necessary? What is the purpose of cancer pain?
https://www.quantamagazine.org/can-new-species-evolve-from-cancers-maybe-heres-how-20190819/
>tl;dr Cancers that learn how to roam between hosts may gradually evolve into their own multicellular species.
to keep the population numbers in control.
>Is not bad because is... LE USEFUL
>dude what is that smell?
>I'm burning? that's a surprise
isn't a world without pain wonderful?
Are you stupid? His training to shut out pain is what allowed him to perform that protest suicide against colonialism in the first place.
>and with removing the existence of pain, it removes all life, because pain is useful and that's why it exists.
That doesn't mean it's good or not bad. It's an undesirable/bad experience.
>undesireable/bad
you assume these are the same. remove "bad" and formulate an idea of why you believe it, without this assumption. your reasoning is circular.
What is undesirable is considered bad or at least morally bad. It's the same shit
what is undesirable in the moment can be good for you, doing something that puts you in danger can be morally good. freeing a criminal from prison is considered a morally bad act even though you are directly reducing that criminal's pain. you have to explain why undesirable means bad because it's not implied in the word, it's not the same thing.
>freeing a criminal from prison is considered a morally bad act
Prison is supposed to be about rehabilitation, criminals who have served their sentence and/or have been found eligible for reduced sentence/parole have the RIGHT to be freed and people like you who keep treating freed people like they are criminals are the actual problem here.
you are deliberately avoiding the point
Your attitude toward people is what's morally bad.
Antinatalism is a negative ethic/morality. You get confused because in negative ethics what is undesirable is equal to bad. In clown ethics they are different
Antinatalism wants to remove the existence of pain, not the pain of existence.
>using an electric current to kill chickens and pigs in farms painlessly does't make the death suddenly better.
Yes it does, painless death is better than painful death.
killing them painlessly while taking away their entire lives and put them in farms - the exchange is shitty no matter how you look at it. That was the point.
it's not about the monk, it's about the idea of what you get when you remove pain entirely. it's a defense mechanism. do I really have to explain this?
>it's not about the monk
Then why did you post a picture of someone who trained his whole life to ignore pain so he could make an effective protest against an oppressive government?
>effective protest
the mind of antinatalist consider burning yourself alive an effective form of protesting
>After the self-immolation, the US put more pressure on Diệm to re-open negotiations on the faltering agreement. Diệm had scheduled an emergency cabinet meeting at 11:30 a.m. on 11 June to discuss the Buddhist crisis which he believed to be winding down. Following Quảng Đức's death, Diệm canceled the meeting and met individually with his ministers. Acting US Ambassador to South Vietnam William Trueheart warned Nguyễn Đình Thuận, Diệm's Secretary of State, of the desperate need for an agreement, saying that the situation was "dangerously near breaking point" and expected Diệm would meet the Buddhists' five-point manifesto. United States Secretary of State Dean Rusk warned the Saigon embassy that the White House would publicly announce that it would no longer "associate itself" with the regime if this did not occur.[29] The Joint Communiqué and concessions to the Buddhists were signed on 16 June.
Yeah, effective.
>killing them painlessly while taking away their entire lives and put them in farms
That's a different topic. The people who pushed for painless death for animals want more than just painless death for them, but not everyone wants to be a vegan.
How is cancer pain necessary, you stupid apes?
>anti-natalist pretends to be concerned by empathy but can't help himself from dehumanizing others
Lol
I'm simply insulting you. I didn't even mean to dehumanize you, you sound like a troony
>anti-natalist pretends to be motivated by empathy but reflexively dehumanizes others
Lol, moron.
It seems that you confuse empathy with respect. You're a dumb b***h
>homosexual anti-natalist with no self-awareness thinks his respect is worth anything
Lol! Stop, my sides.
Anti-natalism is just anti-nature
Pleasure isn't as real as suffering. Pleasure is transient and superficial. Suffering is the real foundation of human existence. It's always present and never changes. You just throw some endorphins over it and get distracted for a brief moment. Satisfaction is having beers on a warm summer evening with an old friend. Pain is wageslaving for 80 years.
This is how I've felt since I was 5 years old.
you've never been equanimous? sounds rough
>he doesn't understad the mechanics of "pain"
>flings his moronic takes anyways
Many such cases
natalism would be fine if I had unilateral veto power over who gets to procreate but until that happens anyone, anywhere who brings a child into the world is objectively evil.
t. satan
>LIFE IS MISERY AND SUFFERING
>ok, have a nice day
>NOOOOOOO, THINGS ARE MAGICALLY DIFFERENT ONCE YOURE ALIVE
>could you at least stop whining and trying to spread your mental illness then?
>REEEEEEEEEEEEEE!
>gets dumped by pat benatar
>is so assblasted he becomes an antinatalist
The mental health of the proponent of antinatalism does not affect the truth of their argument, you fricking morons
I like how that's all they mostly resort to, as if they have said anything useful. no one is saying that all life is bad. but clearly this evolutionary darwinian mess we're in is causing a lot of issues. maybe AI as a life can better understand this and flip the script on evolution someday and establish an acceptable standard for life.
It informs the rationale behind a subjective argument regarding quality of life. Simple as. Find a better cope for being such pathetic losers next time.
how does this fix the suffering in life? im not arguing about you personally you dumb frick. im not saying that parents are evil, but that it's probably a good idea to not have human offspring. you know given how awful life can get, it's not all that an unreasonable view to have. im not dogmatic about my antinatalism but you clearly are a dogmatic "natalist". grow the frick up, there are real issues in the world, and lot of those are rooted in our biology.
>how does this fix the suffering in life?
No one said it does, moron. It demonstrates the fact that anti-natalists are mentally deficient and everything they say when it comes to their subjective arguments is coloured by such.
>projection about being a "hardcore natalist"
If I'm anything, I'm an anti-antinatalist because you guys are pathetic homosexuals. The only thing you get right is that the universe would be better without you.
>anti-antinatalist
>t.
>anti-antisuffering
mfw
like it's one thing to say that im not an antinatalist because I don't think life is all that bleak, but this is no different than those "anti-vegan" types. lol.
>listens to Death Grips
Based.
>antinatalism solves problems but not creating those problems in the first place
Lol, sure moron. Stop trying to make others accountable for the fact you can't have sex.
As for me: it's Saturday night. Have fun with your circle jerk of misery homosexuals.
>tldr
I'm going to go practice making babies. Later loser.
>antinatalism solves problems but not creating those problems in the first place
The damage that antinatalism does is harmless in human terms. In terms of the damage that happens in the world, the damage that antinatalism produces is less than zero.
antinatalism solves problems but not creating those problems in the first place. that's it. that's all there is to it. it's one method out of many to lessen the suffering in this world. but for some reason you get really mad at this.
Took the nietzschean antinatalist pill right fricking NOW
https://www.samwoolfe.com/2021/02/nietzschean-antinatalism.html
Life is le good, anon. Get some sleep, only one more day until it's back to work!
Now we know the autist that posts the PD psych research on the Benatar thread is just a projecting sociopath himself! lmao.
im really sorry that your Dad gave you "tough love" anon, you're probably a boomer, most people in your generation had to suffer under nasty ignorant parents like that. that wasn't real love btw, nor was it genuine in anyway. your father was a sick man, I wish you had a better childhood.
Who's anti-natalist/vegan gang
What atheism does to a motherfricker.
Antinatalism is not something you should wave in proselitism, its a choice so personal might as well be as personal as suicide itself, you take it and bear it with the dignity it deserves, you dont comment on it and by jove you dont force it or eveb suggest it unto others for you might end up creating more suffering instead of preventing it, people regret buying the wrong shade of color on a T-shirt now imagine depriving them of the ultimate biological goal, the one for which their brain is wired to strive, you might subject them to great anguish and despair in later years, if you dont want to have kids to avoid suffering we are free to chose but we must be careful to not turn it into a ego stroking "holier than thou" sofism.