How would one argue against the "baby can't consent into beight brought into existence" argument of anti-natalism (and the whole of anti-natalism for that matter)?
 CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
 |
CRIME Shirt $21.68 |
How would one argue against the "baby can't consent into beight brought into existence" argument of anti-natalism (and the whole of ant...
>beight
If life is bad why not have a nice day?
The great refutation Anti-natalists can't answer.
the anti-natalist position is not that life is completely and inherently bad, it's that life entails inevitable suffering and so creating a life to experience that for your own selfish needs is immoral
Goods outweigh the suffering. Can't complain about every little scratch and stubbed toe.
even if good did outweigh suffering, you've still inflicted suffering by procreating
Suffering builds character. You are making the false assumption all suffering is wrong and bad. Burn yourself on a stove? Now you know not to touch a stove when it is hot. Yes it hurts in the moment but you grew as a person because of it. Would you prefer life as a bubble where nothing happens?
the way this analogy applies to your position is actually "it's OK to press a child's hand against a hot stove because it builds character, and if you disagree then that means you want life to have nothing happen at all"
I'm not even an anti-natalist, but every argument here so far against it is lacking
Not at all, suffering CAN happen, but it isn't guaranteed. I can force a child to burn their hand, but I won't.
every life contains some degree of suffering. suffering is guaranteed
You're having a mememoment where you're on IQfy and you're having cringe self improvement quotes going through your head and you're imagining suffering as some glorious conquest of beasts. In reality suffering is wageslaving for 80 years.
Not a serious argument however much you spam it.
>If life isn't perfect it isn't worth living
I do not agree with this sentiment.
>you're imagining suffering as some glorious conquest of beasts
NO, I simply understand life isn't perfect and know how to roll with the punches and dig my heels into the sand when things get tough instead of complaining.
>working is le-bad
Ah so you are just a lazy zoomer who just wants to spend all day on the computer.
>Not a serious argument
It is, if life is so bad you have no reason to stay if you don't like it here.
>I do not agree with this sentiment.
good thing no one here actually made it, then
>know how to roll with the punches and dig my heels into the sand when things get tough instead of complaining.
This is just cope for living a shit meaningless life that shouldn't have been created in the first place
>living a shit meaningless life
If life is so shit and meaningless" why keep living? If I am complaining about the smell of my trashcan? Would I hold it close and keep it with me? No I throw it away. So why would antinatalists continue to hold onto something they dislike and even hate?
People live objectively shit lives, yet they don't kill themselves. Clearly humans don't actually function in a way where they'll suicide just like pressing a button. It's not a serious response to the extreme shittyness of life for 99.99% of people. I get that the truth of antinatalism causes you to need to cope.
>People live objectively shit lives
>I base this claim on projection and nothing else
Who exactly are you to tell someone else's life is shitty?
Yeah man that physically disabled street kid in south africa lives a great life. His birth was a great thing.
>99.99% of people are equal to that of a disabled South African
Maybe leave your shithole and stop projecting. I can guarantee a majority of people live better lives than cherry picked examples of sick people.
>Suffering builds character
Lmao. Some people build a lot more "character" than others.
>A majority of people live in perpetual Hell
objectively untrue.
People kill themselves everyday. Just get drunk and have a nice day or just find a very high place, not hard.
What country do you live in?
That means that blind orphan bangladeshi street kid has a great life and his birth was a fantastic thing since he's still alive and hasn't khsd
Why are anti-natalists so afraid of suffering?
By what measure is the morality of selfish needs defined? If you suffer it's not my problem, i am not affected in any way by it.
>create a person
>spend the better part of two decades providing for them, caring for them, preparing them to face life's challenges
>"nooooooooo but I still suffered, how could you be so selfish to do this to me?"
because feminists hate men more than life itself so they'd rather live and gatekeep companies from hiring anyone in HR
that's why they're antinatalist and yet refuse to kill themselves
Women aren't antinatalist since their primitive animal instincts to reproduce are stronger than any argument.
yeah that's why birth rates are increasing all over the world you stupid homosexual.
I had no ideal I was replying to a subhuman. Next time someone "why don't antinatalists kill themselves" I'll think this mouth breather who thinks the modern childfree feminist white woman is not an antinatalist and is actually having too many kids
Lmfao fricking subhuman mememoron. Women aren't having kids because they're reading zappfe, it's because they're too busy girlbossing and waiting for 6ft2 millionaire CEO male models. Suddenly all their eggs are gone. Or they're actually having kids, but they're having one kid instead of 3 which also impacts the birth rate. Your entire worldview comes from memes.
>antinatalism bad bcuz trad gigachad memes
>women must be antinatalists since they're not trad wifes like in the gigachad memes
How underaged are you
>you can only be antinatalist if you read this literature
>what is the self-preservation instinct
Is it the name given to the tendency of people to not want to kill themselves?
yeah
Any human can stop existing whenever they want, so that's a non-issue
If you believe in the stupid ass religions, then yeah that reasoning makes sense as most people created are bound to end in hell and suffer forever.
But if you're an atheist who thinks that everything before and after life = nothingness, then your line of thinking is shit because anyone can return to the initial nothingness whenever they want through suicide if the alternative (being alive) isn't to their taste.
>ugh you HAVE TO DEBATE ME BRO!
I wouldnt bother trying to talk to insane weirdos in the first place. Discussions like that are boring and useless anyway.
So what if they can't consent, frick you I will spread my seed like crazy. If they (anti-natalism losers) don't want to procreate I think it's better for the world their weak bloodline goes bye bye.
yeah bro your bloodline is so strong that you spend your time getting tilted on a Bavarian synchronized swimming forum
Strong enough to want to provide for a next generation of children, are you a virgin is that perhaps why you despise the idea of using your penis for what it was built for.
This is an underaged third worlder
Surely you aren't a Sukdeep who can't get pussy so he resorts to telling others they shouldn't have children.
Yeah dude your hardcore intensity posting on IQfy makes you look hard and cool and not like a brown teenager who needs to calm down
then why aren't you doing that instead of getting assmad here?
>"baby can't consent"
Since it is a non entity it has no right to ask for consent.
"To live is to suffer, to survive is to find some meaning in the suffering." ~ Friedrich Nietzsche
Go find meaning.
>if god is real then why do bad things happen
>if life is so bad that it's immoral to breed, then why don't you have a nice day
what is the third leg of the holy trinity of arguments that make attention whoring ideologues seethe so hard that their only answer is turning their refusal to come up with a coherent response into a meme?
I’m not a negative-utilitarian meaning I’m not solely concerned with minimizing harm.
I believe virtue and prosperity can be generated through small lense “unethical” activity like violating the consent of the pre-conscious (who more likely than not will be grateful for their birth).
If you want to make an omelette…
I’m this anon
Butting in
to say that I’m also a eugenicist so I don’t want to breed disabled Africans either.
It doesn’t have to be all or nothing
Underaged homosexual couldn't help but butt in with unrelated/pol/shit
Implicit consent
my baby didn't consent to be brought into this world but I didn't consent to listen to him screaming even though he's not hungry, too warm, too cold, or uncomfortable.
That's why antinatalism is truth
He will wageslave for 80 years
>Having a job is bad
Pull yourself up by your bootstraps kid. Get your hands dirty for once and get off the computer.
Why argue? Let the morons die out of their own accord. I got a white woman and two white babies, o got mine. Frick you guys
My counter argument is that living things tend to want to continue living. A baby would obviously want to live given it exists and you don't ask "nothing" for consent.
Why do you need to argue against it? The burden of proof is on them to substantiate their moral system.
>consent
We allow paramedics to make decisions for unconscious people all the time, no one prosecutes them for sexual molestation because they perform CPR on a woman and touch her breasts in the process. Morality is not quite as simple as revolving entirely around consent.
This is how antinatalists and r*dditors work, they are rather like the puritans, they become obsessed with this or that perceived injustice and work themselves up into a state of moral outrage. Also, since the first 2 sentences of my post suffice to logically disprove antinatalism, there is no point "debating" this with them endlessly for hours and hours.
Let's not give these attention seekers more attention.
I love that you used that pic. Digimon Tamers really is a masterpiece, isn't it?
It's refreshing to see a CHILDREN'S franchise tackling difficult themes like death and Existentialism.
Gotta watch that show sometime this year.
The reason why I don't take money from others is because I can infer that they would not consent to it. This is a reasonable inductive inference given the data. If, therefore, you would argue that I would violate the baby's consent by bringing it into existence, you would have to provide your inductive reasoning that the child does not WANT to be alive.
Why does consent matter?
>How would one argue against the "baby can't consent into beight brought into existence" argument
You don't need to ask for a nonexistent person's consent to do anything.
>You don't need to ask for a nonexistent person's consent to do anything.
This. There is no one to give or withhold consent. And any existing person wants to continue existing by instinct. So the baby always consents to existing.
Consent is a social agreement. Natural phenomena such as birth can not be bound to social agreements such as consent. A baby is born, period. The parents consent to conceive him.
A baby can't not consent into being brought into existence either, which makes it a moot point
They cant either consent into not being so. Under the lack of consent, you choice to let people live until they can express either
Nobody needs their consent.
Oh, that's easy: everyone consents to be reborn in this world. You signed a form and gave it to Hades and Persephone before you reincarnated.