/lit/ - Literature

>>17573745
>>17573618

>>17573745
>Only 159 ratings on amazon
I sleep

>>17573745
>question if it is morally
i thought we where past this

Soon comes those schizos that thinks that suffering is good, kek.

>>17573791
Yes, might as well sit in my room taking opioids until I die. That is the mature thing to do.

Why would I care about the morality of having kids if I want kids? I want to experience raising children and they are going to have to deal with being born if me and the mother want them to be. Your parents probably love you and could use a call.

End stage slave morality

>>17573791
Boo hoo

>>17573797
Cope with drugs or not, bros, one way or another you will cope with something, don't lie to yourself.

>>17573808
Imagine coping with the misery of life by giving up all agency

>>17573803
>>17573797
>nooooooooooooooo you can't say that we shouldn't feel something that makes me bad!!!! we must feel bad! i-it's good to suffer! just like a slave!

Jesus, you people are insane.

>>17573745
*makes you post the same retarded bait thread every day*

>>17573820
But do you do heroin? Be honest anon.

>>17573808
Dunno, anon. It is mostly about perspective and not being sick.

>>17573828
This time it will at least be useful for something.

>>17573745
let's do it again since you never answer to it.
Let us suppose that he's right and that the contents of his book teach the correct reproductive ethics for the human race, that is that no reproduction is ethical.
Let us now imagine that he was never born to write this book.
Clearly this would be a bad thing because we wouldn't get to learn the correct reproductive ethics of our species and potentially billions of babies would be born to suffer and die before someone writes a similar book.
Therefore his not being born would have been bad.
Therefore he's wrong.

>>17573819
>agency
>you will died no matter what
>you will grow weak and old no matter what
>you will suffer for thing that you cant control no matter what
>BRO! JUST TAKE CONTROL! OK! YOU COPING HARD GIVE UP YOUR ANGENCY BRO!

Dumb.

>>17573844
>you will die no matter what
>you will live in absolute misery
>you will also wait for death to come take you instead of doing it yourself
Pathetic

Worked well for Nietzsche.

Oh wait ...

Good. Don't reproduce and die. The world will be a better place without your descendants.

>>17573842
Wrong, if you think that he invented antinatilis, by sheer probability someone would come with the same ideia, cope hard,

>>17573842
man this take is retarded

>>17573820
I'm fine with existing, anon. That is the point. It is just existing, it has its ups and downs, but whatever. Whoever gets into such shit is probably sick or something, this guy deserves to be fucking shoot if he is preying on depressed people.

>>17573852
>just suffer bro!

May as well go to Africa and be a Boko Haram slave, since you like to suffer so much and think that is a blessing.

>>17573745
Maybe you'd be less miserable if you didn't sit in your room posting the same fucking thread every day.
And I've said this before and I'll say it again: This is not a legitimate philosophy, you're depressed. Us breeders are having a great time in life while you're off in the corner obsessing over hypothetical suffering. Get some help and then come join us.

>>17573842
Now that a very weak and dumb argument, set up your game, bro.

>>17573877
>I can only think in strawmen
Do you plan on living out your life for as long as possible or not?

>>17573873
no it's not it's a correct sillogism and you antinatalists never answer to it.
Is twenty seconds and a bit of formal logic really enought to dismantle antinatalism?

>>17573870
moron, I took this into account and you can apply the same reasoning to whoever you think "invented" being a retard.

>>17573887
Bro, again, stop think that just someone is against breeding, it does make one depressed, you just projecting you bias here, bro. To be a antinatalism is just to view birth as negative utility, or, a bad thing, it doesn't mean that one that already exist wont go on to make the best out it of his life. You're coping and have a huge prejudice, read the book.

>>17573889
that is litteraly all it takes, I posted this the last three threads and nobody answered it coherently.
I shat this argument in five minutes.

>>17573902
Yes and your point? Do you know probability bro?

>>17573914
>I shat this argument in five minutes.
Yeah, you can tell.

>>17573924
probability has fuck all to do with this either someone is born that writes a book that describes the correct reproductive ethics for our species or he doesn't.
You litteraly can't argue the fucking point because a sillogism I shat out half distracted by anime feet is enought to dismantle your philosophy.
Fuck you and your threads.

Antinatalism is a self-solving problem.

>>17573745
>morals
you mean in davids subjective opinion?

>>17573973
COpe.

>>17574004
d I l a t e
here the word comes pre dilated so you can have no doubts what you should do.

Do anti-natalists do everything in their power to maximize their pleasure? Do they do everything in their power to end their suffering? No? How unintentionally noble of them.

>>17574065
>max
Yes, as we are already here, might have some fun along the way and bring happiness to all around us

>end suffering
Well, what cause suffering in the first place? Been alive is guarantee to suffer, so yeah, not bring someone to life is guarantee to end suffer in the long run when people realize this point

Cope more, bro.

if you have a kid, you are imposing a kind of suffering that you havent experienced yet unto them, which is dying.

>>17574362
>some fun
Is not maximum fun. Why aren't you on fentanyl right fucking now anon?

Yeah this thread again, still haven’t seen an argument against eventual evolution of humans coming back around.

>>17573745
Anti-natalism is simply the logical conclusion of our current impoverished moral landscape where the only moral imperative left is the avoidance of suffering, with adverse results.

>>17573745
i need to read it

>>17573745
This again. Just an hero

>>17573759
dangerously based

>Antinatalist Incels picking up gay slang

Hmmmm curious

>>17573797
>what are withdrawals
>what is going to prison

>>17574362
Antinatalists are definitively denying future joy from coming into existence

>>17573799
Based anon. I hate humans and am glad for Covid killing off a bunch, but I also had a kid who I love and would like to have more. Don't care about the hypocrisy, my genes deserve to go on because I didn't die from superflu.

>>17573944
>thinking stops people from breeding
>only dumb people reproduce
Enjoy your idiocracy bro

>>17573745
you seriously need to stop shilling your gay ass book on here, benatar

>>17573745
The concept that someone might succeed and experience sublime joy where you failed and succumbed to misery is a concept lost to antinatalists. Pity them, for they are a sad sort who cannot imagine living without a victim complex.

>>being alive is harmful

>>17573745
Don't want to sound like a faggot but I was flirting with antinatalism until I listened to this song for the first time. Now I want 2 kids minimum. Nothing personal, readers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6_luLYYuoo

>antinatalist
>doesn't kill himself

Antinatalists BTFO themselves with literally every second of existence

>>17573944
>dont take risks
clearly incel cope
>>17575410
I like how it goes further away from northern Europe as the IQ declines.

>>17573745
I understand your position but impregnation is hot

>>17575647
>Antinatalists BTFO
Actually no. This is a meme gotcha argument. There are plenty of good arguments against antinatalists but "lmao kek lol just kys hehe" isn't one of them.

r/antinatalism is up to 97,000 subscribers and growing. This is a legitimately dangerous ideology and it’s spreading.

>>17573745
The answer is: if your an antinatalist don't just not breed- kill yourselves so we don't have to listen to your bitching and we'll repopulate the retardant antinatalism represents into non existence.
Seriously, anyone who actually holds these thoughts I'm glad your not going to breed. By your own logic I don't see why you wont kindly fuck off and stop annoying the adults with you pathetic pre pubescent angst.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KSPcoRWPZB8

>>17575668
most of them are just teenage LARPers who've never read Cioran and will move on once their depression goes away

tfw everything he said is correct AND motivates you to have children and teach them the dharma because if you don't they will just be born into a different body

>>17573745
Does it though? I still will coom in a woom when I can so ha

>>17573745
Send this book to Africa so NIGGERS stop reproducing, pls.

>>17575659
>pic
This is pretty cute ngl.

Anti-natalists are a joke. If you hate life so much why don't you kill yourselves? Those of us who actually enjoy life don't think it's suffering.

Antinatalism is cope, the redpilled ideology is being born to do nuclear genocide and free everyone from their life. Not sure what this stance is named

>>17573799
>Why would I care about not torturing someone if I want to torture them?

>>17573745
>morally good

>>17573797
Yes. You will literally get more joy from heroin than anything in this world. Where in the world can you acquire quality heroin legally?

>>17573799
I lean towards anti-natalism but there is nothing wrong with this way of thinking.

>>17573887
> Us breeders
Not many people are breeding. You are either white trash or some betabuxx for a reformed Stacy whose has a notch count of 100+.

>>17574571
Evolution is a weak theory. Abiogenesis as far as we know was a fluke.

>>17575668
How is it dangerous? Reddit anti-natalism is the pozzed version. It literally amounts to

> I don't want to bring kids in a world where there is systematic racism, Trump and climate change
You don't want those people breeding.

>>17575757
Dutton has a PhD in theology (LOL) but postures like an intellectual yet he couldn't even acquire a STEM degree. Evolutionary psychology is intellectually as rigorous as sociology.

It doesn't help that he speaks quickly and stutters so that he can appear more intelligent and pose as an intellectual.

>>17576005
True.

>>17576793
Suicide is difficult to carry out if there is no access to effective methods like guns. Also, some AN don't personally suffer all that much.

>>17576830
Pro-mortalism. Which is arguably the logical corollary of anti-natalism. Although it doesn't say to kill anyone but yourself.

>>17573797
This but in utmost sincerity

>>17577377
Fuck redditors for pushing for faggoty weed legalization, they should legalize actual drugs (heroin, opioids, cocaine) not meme drugs that they saw their favorite meme man, Elon Musk, do. Dumbs you the fuck down which is obviously why they are legalizing it.

Life has pain but I still like being alive. I won't have kids because I'd be a terrible father and I'm too selfish to raise a child properly, but I'll keep enjoying being alive, my situation isn't that bad.
Ideologies like antinatalism and buddhism and whatnot are fine if you're a third worlder with a garbage life but for a westerner with a decent existence to subscribe to that stuff seems weird to me.

>>17573799
>Why do I care about the morality of x if I want x?

>>17573842
>>17573914

No one invented antinatalism or any other idea.

>>17573745
The existence is a torture both mentally and physically. What if there is a hell but you bet on a wrong belief? Why should I torment more people to "find" the right tool for "redemption" in this world? Does redemption even exist? Every faith system is based on some unverifiable claims with the simple logic of just pray bro. If there is no endgame to all our efforts then why should we suffer and for what reason?

Fuck this whole planet and this business of philosophy and belief systems. Everything is futile and drenched in uncertainty and fear.

>>17573842
You're wrong, Promortalism/nonexistence>existence is as ancient as humanity or religion itself.

>"You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: 'you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature's excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.' It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living."

– Aristotle, Eudemus (354 BCE)

>>17573868
The world won't get to see your descendants, either.

>>17575410
This is what Anti-Natalists don't get. The dumbest motherfuckers do not care about your gay philosophy and will keep breeding while your oh so intelligent ass is tossed into a pauper's grave shortly after experiencing years of elderly abuse by those same dumbass children. The future is stupid

>>17573745
>having a baby is morally wrong
>other people will have babies regardless of your choice
>you have to stop other people from having babies
nothing personnel, sane people

>>17577793
Too late lol
I mean, it's pretty hilarious that I can btfo an entire philosophy (albeit, a pretty daft one) by literally having sex, but hey

>>17577813
>by literally having sex
Nothing personnel, kid

>>17577813
this is the most reddit post ever. why would you post on 4chan if youre such a faggot

> it's pretty hilarious that I can btfo an entire philosophy (albeit, a pretty daft one)
low iq take by a low iq individual

>>17577813
>by literally having sex
You don't even understand anitnatalism you retard. Antinatalism is opposite to inceldom. Benetar is a married guy. Zapffe had two wives. Cioran was also married. Schopenhauer was a womanizer his whole youth.

Why is every anti-natalist a typical white cuck?

>>17577813
Holy fucking based

>>17577831
Biggest anitnatalist movement is active in India.

https://youtu.be/jmYDGlixAag

>>17577681
*blow the fuck out of natalist rethoric*

Pst, nothing personal, breeders.

>>17577813
Based af. Antinatlism really is the dumbest philosophy going.

>>17577831
Black people can't think very well, bro, they are not know for being the smart race on the planet. Keep Cope.

>>17577820
So this is the power...of antinatlist "thought"...woah...

>>17577842
>doesn't know about condom or another anti-procriation methods

Lmao, what a dumb nigger.

>>17577840
It is also a really good slap on the faces of every trad larper too. Because pessimists are way more "trad" and closer to Greeks then them.

>>17577852
>>17577825
>has a baby who goes on to live a happy and fulfilling life
>NOOOOOOOOOOO YOU HAVE A 1 IN 500,000 CHANCE OF BEING MURDERED CLEARLY IT'D BE BETTER IF YOU NEVER EXISTED
Do antinatlists even qualify as human at this point?

>life is suffering
Hell no it isnt. Im fucking enjoying this ride.
All the ups and downs make this thing beautiful. Stop fucking whining and quit being a bitch. Go outside and have sex

>>17577863
>have sex, incel

Kek, nice argument there, bro.

>>17577813
>>17573842
Antinatlist incels in absolute shambles.

>>17577872
did you even read my post? cope more with your retarded philosophy

>>17577863
Nobody is saying that once alive he should strive to have a nice life, you half-wit, the point of antinatalism that having a child is a huge gamble with someone's life, the child maybe born to be a great person or born with a fucking congenital problem that makes them suffer for the rest of their lives. I think those who are natalist are actually pretty dumb, just can spew things like: "my life, muh life" , they don't actully think about the children, bunch of half wits.

>>17577861
>Do antinatlists even qualify as human at this point?
Never did, I like to threaten them at gunpoint, they're left shaking and pissing themselves with fear, begging for mercy (AKA existence).
They're braindead hypocrites who can NEVER justify why, logically, they haven't just killed themselves.

>>17577880
>having a child is a huge gamble
If having a child was a gamble the casino would be bankrupt a million times over. Assuming your child will live a life preferable to non-existent is basically the world's safest bet.

>>17577884
I could knock you out with a single uppercut before your 70 IQ reflexes could even pull that trigger.

>>17577880
There is no gamble if you are good as a parent. Seethe more

>>17577893
Yes, yes, and how do you cope with the fact that you'll never be a parent yourself?

>>17577880
Also, those who just spew "MUH LIFE, MOTHERFUCKER, MUH LIFE IS GOOD" just arent cut to be a good father if they cant think of the consequence of having a children, just literally fuck without think, just like animals, kek.

>>17577891
Them go play in a cassino, bro, maybe you can win or not, good luck.

>>17577893
Kek, dumb nigger, think a little more.

>by the end of the century the wold will be populated by 4 billions of nigger roaming around the world

No, thanks, I ain't putting my child to fight hordes of nigger that wants to bring back a new dark ages, I will let the chinks fight those nigger hordes.

>>17577861
>>17577884
Some posted this a while ago so here you go:

>is not necessary to view it as an evil, or painful thing, either
>not a painful thing
Except it is, both on a physical level (if you commit suicide) AND most importantly on an existential level, as you have the constant and ominous feeling that death is going to be inevitable (or imminent, in the case I find myself all alone on a rooftop, with the void in front of me) down the road? You create a being biogically programmed to wanting to live above all, only to make it die later. And this is regardless of the quantity of pain you went through during your life, as death is inevitable, no amount of happiness you felt is suddenly going to cancel it. Sure, you can do everything in your might to alleviate this dread by being busy with love, hobbies and whatever (one in fact does everything in their might to live the best life they can as they've already entered existence), but why couldn't this be prevented altogether?
The presence of death in one's life being the ultimate factor of existential pain is why "If you think your personal life sucks so much, you can fix it by killing yourself" is not only a contradiction, but in fact an argument in favor of AN. You've forced me in a situation where I, a being attached to his own existence, are forced to choose voluntarily what I abhor he most if I want to escape the other pain I experience during my own existence.
People with shitty lives already suffer because, well, they lead shitty lives; people with "happy" lives, if they focus clearly on the human condition, realize all of what they cherish (to which they're obviously attached) is going to be taken away from them. A person who believes in AN doesn't say "Since life sucks, I'm going to kill myself", they say "I wish I had never existed in first place so I wouldn't have to experience this horrible feeling of death approaching right now". ANs, observing the situation, ask you: "why did you have to create an entity that is attached to their own existence if the laws of the universe are going to strip them of this very thing they're attached to and cause him dread because of this? Why couldn't you spare them this pain?".

Reply to this without "You just say this because you'd be a terrible parent!", "It's good that you think about this, that way you can remove yourself from the gene pool", "something something Reddit" or the evergreen "Fucking Jews, man, I bet this is an idea they came up with to destroy the White race".

Of course it is moral. Being alive is good, therefore making new living entities is good.

>>17577900
>>17577899
go outside once in your lifetime

>>17577907
Death is becoming nonexistent. If not existing is good, then death is good. If existing is good, then creating someone is good too.

Tolstoy on the fear of death.

>There is an Eastern fable, told long ago, of a traveller overtaken on a plain by an enraged beast. Escaping from the beast he gets into a dry well, but sees at the bottom of the well a dragon that has opened its jaws to swallow him. And the unfortunate man, not daring to climb out lest he should be destroyed by the enraged beast, and not daring to leap to the bottom of the well lest he should be eaten by the dragon, seizes s twig growing in a crack in the well and clings to it. His hands are growing weaker and he feels he will soon have to resign himself to the destruction that awaits him above or below, but still he clings on. Then he sees that two mice, a black one and a white one, go regularly round and round the stem of the twig to which he is clinging and gnaw at it. And soon the twig itself will snap and he will fall into the dragon's jaws. The traveller sees this and knows that he will inevitably perish; but while still hanging he looks around, sees some drops of honey on the leaves of the twig, reaches them with his tongue and licks them. So I too clung to the twig of life, knowing that the dragon of death was inevitably awaiting me, ready to tear me to pieces; and I could not understand why I had fallen into such torment. I tried to lick the honey which formerly consoled me, but the honey no longer gave me pleasure, and the white and black mice of day and night gnawed at the branch by which I hung. I saw the dragon clearly and the honey no longer tasted sweet. I only saw the unescapable dragon and mice, and I could not tear my gaze from them. and this is not a fable but the real unanswerable truth intelligible to all. The deception of the joys of life which formerly allayed my terror of the dragon now no longer deceived me. No matter how often I may be told, "You cannot understand the meaning of life so do not think about it, but live," I can no longer do it: I have already done it too long. I cannot now help seeing day and night going round and bringing me to death. That is all I see, for that alone is true. All else is false. The two drops of honey which diverted my eyes from the cruel truth longer than the rest: my love of family, and of writing -- art as I called it -- were no longer sweet to me. "Family"... said I to myself. But my family -- wife and children -- are also human. They are placed just as I am: they must either live in a lie or see the terrible truth. Why should they live? Why should I love them, guard them, bring them up, or watch them? That they may come to the despair that I feel, or else be stupid? Loving them, I cannot hide the truth from them: each step in knowledge leads them to the truth. And the truth is death.
Leo Tolstoy, A Confession

>>17577916
>>17577916

>JUST GOE OUTSIDE BRO! AND SEE DUMB NIGGER MAKING CRIMES AND RAPING, BAD PARENTS, CHILDREN SUFFERING FOR NOTHING AT ALL, PSYCOPATHS MAKING LIFE HELL, DUMB PEOPLE IN GENERAL, POLITICIAN MAKING THE COUNTRY SHIT, SEETHING TRANNIES HELLBENT ON MOLESTING CHILDREN, JUST GO OUTSIDE BRO AND PUT OR CHILDREN AND LET THE ROLL OF DICE DECIDE HIS LIFE

Good parent that you will be, cope more.

>>17577907
>pain and suffering is so bad
>you will eventually lose everything once you die

>>17577900
>Them
So mad at his public humiliation he can't even spell anymore.
>Them go play in a cassino
At a casino I'm likely to immediately lose short term and certainly long term, if having babies is a game of chance then I'm likely to father ten thousand children before a worthless failure turns up.

>>17577937
noone forces you to live in a shithole

>>17577940
Could you please refute this statement logically? Otherwise I'll have to ask you to fuck off. Adults are talking here.

>>17577950
>logically
I FUCKING LOVE SIENCE

>>17577907
It's not the middle ages anymore, you can kill yourself in a totally painless, even enjoyable, way in your own home, and yet your refuse to, every nanosecond more spent living utterly refuting anti-natlism.

>>17577950
Logically or mathematically?

People who want children are just gamblers, feel bad for their children, clearly one can see that many of them are just hard coping, and don't actually think of the children welfare at all, just thinks like: "im gonna be a good parent bro! don't know nothing about parenting at all, just trust me bro!"

Dumb logic, maybe one or two here will actually be a good father, as for the rest, pity their children.

>>17577932
?

>>17577953
Thank for completely missing the point.

>>17577956
Gambling with 99+% victory rate is OK.

>>17577907

>>17577960
>?
"?" ?

>>17577964
What victory?

>the book that makes truly /lit/ seethe in an epic scale

Love those threads, is funny from both said, the coping is truly in a unimaginable level, kek.

>>17577968
Living of course.

>>17577907
All this is on you. Most people think their life is worth living. This includes people who think a lot about their lives, as still a majority of philosophers or intellectuals wouldn't say life isn't worth living. So most people are happy to be birthed. So under most circumstances, you don't harm someone by giving them birth, you give them something fundamental they like.
You guys need to understand you are the ones that are not fit for life in the face of death, loss, pain. Most people can handle it. Indeed, you shouldn't reproduce, as you might carry on bad genes or raise your kids to be like you. But stop pestering people.

>>17577969
Every antinatalist immediately breaks after suicide question.

>>17577950
Many people can handle pain and suffering. In fact, most people throughout history handled a lot of pain and suffering and kept living, clearly attesting to their beliefs it was all worth it. This includes atheists, people who thought a lot about life and its meaning, etc.
Losing something doesn't you don't prefer to have had it than never having had it.

>>17577978
Cope.

>>17577972
Ah, the living. You mean wasting time on one of the most decadent forums of the internet while arguing the breeding matters.

>>17577981
>You mean wasting time on one of the most decadent forums of the internet while arguing the breeding matters.
It's an absolutely pleasurable amusement. I don't engage in it all the time only because there are better ones.

>>17577969
It's not seethe, it's revulsion. And it's not just /lit/, it's most people. Saying something like "life isn't worth living" signals you have a mental illness, that you're unfit even for good living conditions. People naturally find it repulsive.

>>17577974
>as still a majority of philosophers or intellectuals wouldn't say life isn't worth living.
Empedocles - no kids, an hero
Heraclitus - no kids
Silenus - no kids
Parmenides - no kids
Plato - gay nigga
Epicurus - no kids
Epictetus - no kids
Bodhidharma - no kids
Zhuang - no kids
Abhinavagupta - no kids
Shankaracharya - no kids
Mani - no kids
Al-Kindi - no kids
Al-Farabi - no kids
Averroes - no kids
Avicenna - no kids
Aquinas - no kids
Spinoza - no kids
Kant - no kids
Leibniz - no kids
Hume - no kids
Kierkegaard - no kids
Fourier - no kids
Schopenhauer - no kids
Stirner - no kids
Mainländer - no kids, an hero
Nietzsche - no kids
Weininger - no kids, an hero
Michelstaedter - no kids, an hero
Spengler - no kids
Wittgenstein - gay nigga
Zapffe - no kids
Weil - no kids
Evola - no kids
Arendt - no kids
Beauvoir - no kids
Sartre - no kids
Debord - no kids, an hero
Caraco - no kids, an hero
Cioran - no kids
Althusser - no kids
Foucault - gay nigga
Kaczynski - no kids
John Gray - no kids

>>17577978
>h-ha, the antinatalist c-can't deal w-with my rebuttal


>It is unethical to put people in a situation where the only escape is suicide and all of the pain, fear, guilt of leaving others behind, and more that comes with it. Not to mention the pain that precedes it that pushes people to this point in the first place. Also, many people are miserable but don’t commit suicide because they are afraid they will survive, fear the pain, don’t want to hurt others, social stigma, the survival instinct, etc. They never should have been put into this situation in the first place.

>Additionally, the idea that no more new people should be brought into existence does not necessarily imply by itself that people who have already been forced to exist should stop existing. A person who is currently alive may be happy with their life and want to continue living. However, it is still unethical to create someone else who might not feel the same way. Since there is no way to know how they will feel and no way to receive consent to take the risk, it is not morally justified to reproduce.

>Furthermore, people who are born may suffer but still be concerned about how their friends or family will react to a suicide. So even if they are miserable, they will not commit suicide and continue suffering for the sake of others. This does not mean they enjoy life or think it is worth the pain; they simply do not want to hurt others by committing suicide.

>>17573791
This. Its only not considered mental gymnastics because people are used to it and conditioned to call out people who complain as "weak" to feel better about themselves
Most cringey are Neechee or Camü fags who go like "Yeah suffering is so bad its good haha"
But I have to add, suffering is not "the" bad thing on its own but conscious suffering

>>17577991

>>17577987
Is pure seething, bro.

>>17577986
Keep coping.
The people who view being alive as a victory don't waste away themselves on the shitholes like 4chan.

>>17577992
>>It is unethical to put people in a situation where the only escape is suicide
Suicide is ceasing to exist. If existing is bad, then it is perfectly moral.

>>17577991
They didn't say life wasn't worth living you retard. The majority of philosophers don't think that, as anyone with a shred of education knows.
Of course they, being autists, are not going to have kids, it's just not their personality. But the vast majority of philosophers didn't think it was a moral evil to have children.

>>17577992
>no more new people should be brought into existence
Brought from where?

>>17577960
>>Thank for completely missing the point
>I wish I was never born! :'(
>then kill yourself painlessly and effortlessly
>n-no, I love life so much that the mere thought of not existing terrifies me! But I totally wish I never got to experience it
Yeah, okay retard.
>>17577950
If I can go to a casino, roll dice on someone else's behalf and win millions for them 99 times out of 100, then "gambling" is not just a moral good, it's a moral imperative.

>>17577995
I explained why it wasn't. Seethe implies it's coming from a place of envy, or inferiority. Here it's the opposite. The anti-natalist is unfit for life, mentally ill by the strictest definition. People either pity him or find him disgusting.

>>17577994
even if this is carry picking there is large chunk of philosophers. no philosophies arise from being a normalfaggot in a happy mood.

>>17578002
They had no kids so technically they are antinatalists. Even if they were life affirmers they never practiced what they preached.

>>17577999
That's trivially false, you and me are the counterexamples.

>>17578018
If you are a genius, you can bring more joy for yourself and others by focusing on your field of study instead of starting a family.

>>17577992
>It is unethical to put people in a situation where the only escape is suicide
This is sophistry. You don't put someone in a situation by birthing them, you make them exist period. The very ability to make the choice to live or not to live is given then. So birthing someone is actually giving them the choice to kill or to keep living, while not birthing someone is not to give them any type of choice with regards to anything. These are asymetric.

>>17578019
Cope harder you failed faggot, my fellow 4chan autist.

>>17574571
>Its okay to suffer today because FUTURE HUMANS may not

>>17578018
>They had no kids so technically they are antinatalists. Even if they were life affirmers they never practiced what they preached.
Cope, they knew what they believed better than you do. I don't farm because it's not my thing but it's good some people do, I like eating corn.

>>17577987
>Saying something like "life isn't worth living" signals you have a mental illness
Honestly, saying this and killing yourself is based, it shows you went out on your own terms like a man.
On the other hand, saying this and then making up excuse after excuse, contradicting your claims about how life is worthless and basically publicly shitting your pants is the antithesis of basedness.

>>17578018
>no philosophies arise from being a normalfaggot in a happy mood.
Unhappiness doesn't mean suicide, and suicide doesn't mean you didn't think your life was worth it up to a point, and even if you think your particular life isn't worth it that doesn't mean you think living as such is never worth it. The antinatalist position is the latter, almost no philosopher holds it.

>>17578036
>more cherry picking

>>17578025
No if are an intelligent the birth rates fall. This is whats going on in Europe.

>>17578032
Cope, they were hypocrites just like pessimists who never practiced what they preached. But at least pessimists don't breed.

>>17578018
>no philosophies arise from being a normalfaggot in a happy mood.
Have you read Plato?

>>17578028
Stop being tsundere.

>>17578052
>Cope, they were hypocrites just like pessimists who never practiced what they preached. But at least pessimists don't breed.
I just showed you wrong. Again, do you think that because I don't farm, it means I think farming is bad?

>>17578052
>No
Reading comprehension?

>>17578042
>almost no philosopher holds it.
illiterate imbecile.

>>17578048
Cope breeder cope.

>>17577848
wtf....lol

you misrepresented a philosophy and touted yourself as a winner. dumb fuck lel

>>17578052
>philosophers don't even know what they believe is right
>but they're smart so you have to live like them

>>17578064
>illiterate imbecile.
Find me more than 20 philosophers who explicitly said life as such was never worth it, and thus giving birth was a moral evil.

>>17577813
lmao

>>17578018
>They had no kids so technically they are antinatalists
This reminds me of how atheists cope by insisting that every single great thinker was secretly an atheist just like them.
No, they were mostly too busy with other shit to raise a family, intellectual pursuits and such, yet another refution of the intellectual dead end that is antinatlism.

>>17573799
>t. self-aware cancer

>>17578084
HeLa cells story is magnificient.

>>17578080
> refutation
how is that a refutation? your proof that the average iq of this place is 85-90. lol at all the fat retards who think lit is somehow intellectual when these mouthbreathers exist and shit up the board with their vomit

>>17578065
Nah, they are just hypocrites

>>17578080
My point is if pessimists are hypocrite for not killing themselves then those life affirming philosophers who made antinatalist moves are also hypocrite.

All antinatalists who meant it are already dead, so only posers remain.

>>17578093
If I don't work at the car factory, I am not making anti-car moves.

>>17577932

>>17577820
>>17577852
>>17577872
>>17577892
>>17577900
>>17577960
Average antinatlist """"""""""""""argument""""""""""""""

>>17578102
If you said that making cars is duty but you yourself never performed that duty then this makes a hypocrite and an anti-duty person in your actions.

>>17578089
So you answer all good points with insult and arrogance? Being as spiteful as you are, I'm not surprised you hate life.
Your whole point is that you know better than them what they thought, that they thought having kids was bad because they didn't have kids. But everyone who has met a very dedicated, passionate person knows that they don't have kids not because they hate life but because they want to focus on a specific part of it. It's a much safer assumption than "secretly they hated life eventhough their moral philosophy doesn't say or imply that".

>>17578095
All natalists who meant it are already dead, so only posers remain.

>>17577907
What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is merely information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind.

>>17577863
>stop whining, I am le strong, stop complaining
Literal retard "arguments"

>>17578109
Well, it's not a strict duty, it's just a good thing to do.

>>17578115
>>17578108
holy shit i thought u were being ironic but you are actually serious???

dumbass did you read his reply to me, was there an argument in there. fucking dumbass lol

>>17578109
Who says having kids is a *duty* lmao
Have kids if your situation is such that they will most probably think it was good you birthed them (most cases, statistically), and you positively desire it for some reason.

>>17578116
Earth population is the highest now, so natalists are practicing what they preach.

>>17578127
Whatever you want to call it. If you never performed it then you're a hypocrite and you yourself never took it seriously.

>>17578116
true natalists would have as many kids as possible. they would even go around raping women because life is so great that bringing a child into this world through rape is justifiable so true natalists are in prison

>>17578128
You write
>They had no kids so technically they are antinatalists. Even if they were life affirmers they never practiced what they preached.
He answered
>No, they were mostly too busy with other shit to raise a family, intellectual pursuits and such, yet another refution of the intellectual dead end that is antinatlism.
It's an argument, plus a valid one. I also added to it.

>>17578128
>u
Are you from India?

>>17573745
this whole discussion is pointless every time it comes up. people are colonies of bacteria - you'll never overcome the biological imperative to divide into more cells. just look at human hiistory - ancient or modern: people have instituted every kind of law and punishment imaginable and yet even slaves were allowed to have kids. just give up: we're going to fill up our petri dish until we can't and then collapse.

>>17578138
No, birthing people could be a moral good *among others*. If it's also good to respect people's right, then you can only do this good by not disrespecting other people's right (not to be raped).
Natalism isn't the idea that the *only good thing in the world* is having kids.

>>17573829
>implying heroin addiction doesn’t cause suffering

>>17578136
>Earth population is the highest now,
Yes, my fellow 3rd world retards breed like rabbits. But birth rates in intellectual Europe are declining.

>>17578129
>>17578137

>>17578148
Arabs castrated their slaves.
We could castrate inferior races.

>>17578036
That's good historical context but it doesn't mean I have to agree with them. I think they're just expressing the lamentation of human suffering.
Sure if someone is never born they can't suffer, but the fact remains they can't live either. They aren't presenting an argument for life not being worth living, and the one presented by antinatalists now isn't convincing.
And Seneca sounds like a brainlet cause the unborn can't be happy. He has to be speaking poetically there.
And they all had kids (albeit Seneca's died young).

>>17578137
No, see >>17578102 I think that making cars is good, but I don't make them myself.

>>17578154
Europe population is the highest too.

>>17573887
>This is not a legitimate philosophy
>you're depressed
OP being depressed doesn’t make it not a legitimate philosophy

>>17578160
So ethics of a cars is same as human kid?

>>17578154
You literally refuse yourself you retard. You quote
>Whatever you want to call it. If you never performed it then you're a hypocrite and you yourself never took it seriously.
But I wrote
>Have kids if your situation is such that they will most probably think it was good you birthed them (most cases, statistically), and you positively desire it for some reason.
If you don't personally desire or aren't in such a situation then no, you aren't a hypocrite for not having kids while not being an anti-natalist. You can think it's morally neutral or even good to have kids in other circumstances. It doesn't need to be having kids per se that is good, but having kids in some circumstances. For example, if you think rape is also evil, having kids by raping people isn't good, even if having kids was good.

>>17578154
>But birth rates in intellectual Europe are declining.
And that's cause they believe life is suffering? No, they are just decadent. Ironically they are too busy selfishly enjoying life to reproduce.

>>17578166
That's because of immigrants.

>>17578174
No, they are different. But creating more of each isn't a strict duty, but a pretty good thing, so the are the same in this respect.

>>17578174
In that instance, yes, that makes no difference. Something can be good while not implying a duty to do it personally. A good can be supererogatory, or it can be balanced by bad conditions. Maybe giving to charity is supererogatory : it's good to do it but not a duty. Or maybe discovering new medicines is good, but not when you have to torture animals to get there.

>>17578128
You expect to be taken seriously when all you can do is screech "dumb nigger" at your intellectual superiors, tears streaming down your bright red pimply face, in impotent rage at your self-imposed virtual depantsing?
Fuck off faggot, your contribution to this thread (and Earth as a whole) is nil.

>>17578176
When you affirm life then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17578191
>In that instance, yes,
THE ABSOLUTE STATE OF NATALISTS

Also people fall short of their moral principles all the time. Someone in a perfect situation to have kids who doesn't but think he should make just be weak-willed. That doesn't mean he's wrong.
I happen to think the anti-natalist is also a hypocrite of that kind if he doesn't kill himself, for example, but that wouldn't make him wrong necessarily.

>>17577978
>Why isnt every christian a saint?
>Why isnt every Nietzschean an Übermensch?
>Why isnt every Kantian a literal Sperg Moralist? (That one may be true though)

>>17578193
I just refuted you you retard. You just repeat the same thing again and again?
What does "affirming life" mean? That it's a good? It can be a supererogatory good and therefore not a duty. Or it can be good but not in the particular conditions you find yourself in.
Also, non-anti-natalists don't have think giving birth is inherently good either, they can think it's morally neutral.

>>17578156
could never be thorough enough. not really a reason to despair, though. just like in the case of every other bacteria, the system will correct itself and populations will be brought back down to match. whatever humans are left after everything falls won't have easy access to fossil fuels like we did and will probably have a near-earth orbit overloaded with debris keeping them grounded. my headcanon is that we'll just be stuck in an eternal renaissance/early blackpowder age for the rest of our existence after that with no chance for industrialization which honestly doesn't sound so terrible.

>>17578204
Yes, world is a great thing. Creating more people to enjoy it is great, creating more things for people to enjoy is great too.

>>17578209
Because becoming saint is close to impossible.
Because becoming an Übermensch is close to impossible.
This one is more possible, so you probably can find some.

>>17578204
Well do you disagree that because you think cars are good, you have to make cars yourself? Same thing with birth, it can be good to have a certain number of kids per generation on aggregate (say for society to keep functionning well), but if it's going to be reached independantly of you, you thus don't have a duty to do it yourself. It's not that hard to understand, but keep trying to score cheap points as you get demolished.

>>17573745
>moral
Spooked

>>17578220
You didn't stupid fucking cunt. I don't give a shit about explain you the most entry level terms. Everybody intuitively knows what being life affirming means. Being life affirming and not having kids is hypocritical and an antinatalist move.

>>17578222
I agree that if we fuck up industrialization now we might never get there again, because of ressource limitations and maybe how unlikely these techs are to be developped at all.
But that just makes eugenics more necessary imo, I think it could be done.

>>17577351
Cope

>>17578243
>intuitively
Lol.

>>17578225
>>17578237
>MAKING CARS IS SAME AS MAKING SENTIENT LIFE
Natalist logic everybody. You people have literally worms in your brain.

>>17578243
I took the few possible definitions and showed why it wasn't hypocritical at all, depending on your conditions. I'll quote myself again :
>What does "affirming life" mean? That it's a good? It can be a supererogatory good and therefore not a duty. Or it can be good but not in the particular conditions you find yourself in.
>Also, non-anti-natalists don't have think giving birth is inherently good either, they can think it's morally neutral.
In all cases you are wrong.
And also, even if one is a hypocrite, that doesn't mean one's wrong ; people fall short of their principles all the time.

>>17578257
My faggot just fuck off your Socratic bullshit if you don't want to discuss things in a pragmatic way.

>>17578262
They're just the same *in that regard*, you retard. Do you understand how comparisons work?

>>17578262
Both are good (although different).

>>17578271
One guy defined things precisely and refuted you, you answer by just relying on your intuitive sense of what the word means. You're dumb. At least try to provide a definition where your argument works.

>>17577892
I would break your jaw and you’d still beg to be alive, sad!
>>17577907
That’s a lot of word salad and cope. Hard to argue with anti natalists when they actively refute their own philosophy and don’t present any arguments.

>>17578271
>pragmatic
Logically?

>>17577950
>if I eat I’ll just be hungry again
>better tell everyone eating is “morally” bad but keeping eating anyway
This is you. Back to R/neildegrassetyson champ.

>>17578264
>>17578280
>>17578286
>>17578287
When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17577907
You just say this because you'd be a terrible parent. It's good that you think about this, that way you can remove yourself from the gene pool, you redditor. I bet this is an idea Jews came up with to destroy the White race, incidentally.

>>17578292
>That’s a lot of word salad
Illiterate imbecile.

Antinatlists getting destroyed up and down this thread (as usual lmao)
Why do they even make these threads? All it does is convince more people to reject their ideas when they defend them so poorly and resort to childish insults when refuted.
>>17578262
>>17578204
>>17577852
Meanwhile, none of them can refute this
>>17578009
>If I can go to a casino, roll dice on someone else's behalf and win millions for them 99 times out of 100, then "gambling" is not just a moral good, it's a moral imperative.

>>17578315
You can read your complete refutation here once again :
>>17578264

>>17578323
There is just empty word play and no refutation.

>>17578315
Of course not. There are myriads of good things I don't do myself.

>>17578330
Read again then, you brain-damaged piece of human garbage.

>>17578315
Not creating life is neutral, advocating for it is a net good, actually producing it even more so.
If antinatlists managed to convince anyone of their ideas they'd be evil and frankly need to be destroyed, but they'd first have to leave their filthy basements to do that.

>>17578316
Another retarded cunt
Read >>17577681

>>17578335
>>17578340
When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17578337
Read my response again then, you brain-damaged piece of human garbage.

>>17577980
Cope >>17577992
You are assuming that people are miserable, and that misery is bad, two statements that you cannot and will not back up. Even if I grant you those assumptions, you call to moral and ethical reasons, clearly you don’t belive in a Christian go’s or you’d know there is salvation after death. Where do you derive your morals from? Lol at that second paragraph. Are you talking MORALLY or ETHICALLY (both spooks) make up your mind nigger.

>>17578341
>he didn't get the meme
Also Aristotle there is arguing for death because he thought there was life after death. He thought with death you'd reach a higher state of conscious experience. This is not the anti-natalist position as you guys think conscious experience is bad.

>>17578348
>When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.
Are you stuck, my friend?

>>17578348
You were refuted and provided no counter argument. You simply repeat the same thing again and again, like a broken record. All further posts by you without even attempt at a counter argument are copes.

>>17578356
>Also Aristotle there is arguing
>Aristotle
>Is arguing
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA read it again subhuman

>>17578364
What is he doing if not arguing for this idea? He writes :
>This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true.
You'll notice this sentence contains logical connectors. It's an argument.

>>17573799

>Wants to bring life into the world against its will and thinks the child just has to deal with whatever life it gets, even if it disagrees with the life it is immersed in

Anyone with this view has no room to complain about society going to shit, younger generations being lazy or nihilistic, or poor third world countries bringing too many children into the world. You get the society you breed, and if that's just breeding for the sake of it and not reasoning as to whether or not it's just to bring life into the world in the first place, then you can't even complain. Unfortunately, everyone I know with this mentality also complains about he state of the world constantly. Conclusion: breeders are incapable of thinking systematically, or beyond their own garden fence for that matter.

>>17578375
>Wants to bring life into the world
Bring from where?

>>17578375
Most people who have kids think they can raise their kids well. This guy is obviously an exception.

>>17578375
>against its will
Against whose will? Will of a nonexistent person?

>>17573842

Lmao did you get this reasoning from the Sophist handbook?

>>17578358
Nah you're stuck my fellow autist. Go and create life instead of arguing with pessimists on a Mongolian basket weaving forum.

>>17578361
You are coping by playing shit-tier language games.

>>17578373
Please stop embarrassing yourself. And reread that quote.

>this thread

>>17578388
I'll do if you will follow the antinatalist teachings and off yourself.

>>17578388
More cope from a guy that was assblasted by a simple refutation in two sentences.
Read it a fifth time just to cry more >>17578264

>>17578375
>Wants to bring life into the world against its will
We don't know if it's against the child's will until it is born. If the child is happy to have been born, as the case in the large majority of cases, then not having children is a monstrous act. Again, if even 6 kids out of 10 will live a happy life (it's much more than that, more like 9/10, but just assume a worst case situation) then, logically, you should have as many children as you can.

>>17578397
Nah, I am hypocrite. And my only cope is that I don't want to put the burden of my suffering onto the shoulders of my family.

>>17578403
When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17578388
That quote contains an argument for the idea that death is good, because it an ancient idea. But it doesn't defend anti-natalism, because this notion of death is of death as entry into an afterlife; the Greek obviously didn't think death was a cessation of experience. Anything precise to refute here dumbass?

>>17578413
Bro stop repeating yourself it's getting awkward, we've already answered you.

>>17578413
>When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.
No, see >>17578160

>>17578417
Kek, it's so fucking obvious.
Fucking embarrassing.

>>17578424
When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17578434
When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17578441
>Kek, it's so fucking obvious.
Explain it then.

>>17578447
This antinatalist is broken, bring a new one.

>>17578458
Kek
When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17578463
If you're a homo you'll post that one more time.

>>17578463
No, its not.

I can say exercise is good but still struggle to go to the gym.

Brainlet pls go

>>17573745
Why does this get shilled every day

>>17578356
>>17577681
This.
>they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature
That's not a description of non-existence.
>whose life is but for a day
Implying the dead continue to exist in some way for an indefinite period relative to the living.
But my understanding of the religion is that the dead suffer when they aren't worshiped (remembered) or when they're living family dishonour them.
Silenus is a mythological figure and this story is merely expressing an idea which Aristotle was subsequently relating.

>>17578467
When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17578473
>Struggle
You literally have to coom in the puss of your several times and a leech will pop out after 9 months. What is the fucking struggle in this? When your brain rewards you the every single step you take towards procreation. Yes there is struggle for women to carry the leech in her wombs but you are a man.

>>17578504
Oh shit Anon you're a homo now!

>>17578504
*of your wife

>>17578508
Kek

>>17578504
The struggle is raising them afterward, or getting to a situation where you can raise them in good conditions.

>>17578519
This is one of the arguments of antinatalists.

>>17578528
If so it's a bad one. Almost nobody thinks it's good to have kids in *all* situations. It's also better if, say, you think it'd be good for you to have six kids, to have them at the optimal moment of your life to raise them well.

>>17578544
>If so it's a bad one.
Oh, kindly fuck off.

>>17578504
The struggle is obviously being in a good financial position with the right partner. stop being a faggot

>>17578562
You really argue like a young girl.

>>17578572
You argue like a 80 year old braindead boomer.

>>17578584
Why would we talk with you if you don't answer arguments with counter-arguments? Start a blog.

>>17578567
If you're not making an effort to stable your financial position then when you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17578598
You are still talking with me retard.

>>17578613
You could rephrase it more simply : if you're not creating life when you are in a good situation to do so, you're a hypocrite. Which is true if you think creating life is a positive duty, and not just a supererogatory good or morally neutral, both positions that are still contradictory with regarsd to anti-natalism.
Then, given that imaginary hypocrite is in your mind, what have you achieved? He may still be right, he's just a hypocrite.

>>17578627
And I'm asking you why I should keep going if you don't answer arguments with counter-arguments. Which, obviously, is a way to get you to do so.

>>17578613
That doesn't follow.

>>17578633
Nah, it's hypocritical according to the natalist logic.

>>17578643
You don't even view my counter arguments as arguments. I am not asking you to engage with me.

>>17578662
saying fuck off isn't an argument. Stop playing the victim

>>17578662
Saying "no this is hypocritical because I say so" again and again doesn't count as a counter argument.
Define natalism in such a way that your accusation of hypocrisy works, and that it includes your opponents in this thread whom you accuse of being hypocrites. If you can't do that you've failed. It's pretty simple.

>>17578666
Nice digits
Eh, Your "argument" was really fucking dishonest.

>>17578685
In what way is it dishonest?

>>17578685
im not the same person. Im just pointing out you're a retard nigger

>>17578682
As I have said earlier I don't give a shit about your language games. You should follow the reply chain to see it's origin.

>>17578693
It was obvious.

>>17578704
A (You) for the cumskin monke.

>>17578729
So your argument is "I don't give a shit about your argument, it's a language game". How is it a language game? It's a language game if I redefine the terms wrongly. So go ahead, give me your definition of natalism where your accusation of hypocrisy works, and that covers your opponents in this thread whom you accuse of being hypocrites. And if you can't do that you've failed. Got it now?

>>17578729
If you refuse to even try to define the terms you use or answer arguments you are the sophist Anon.

>>17578740
Go follow the chain if want to know the origin of "hypocrisy" accusation.

If you're white you have a duty to pass on your genes. We are the only race to produce a high amount of creative geniuses. It would be immoral for us to not breed. Our children, if raised correctly, could change the world for the better and establish a successful future for their children and thereafter. Once the white guilt/ebil whitey period passes and the Jews are gone and the West is fucked beyond repair, it will be us who will rebuild. Not producing life is giving up. You may as well not be here. Selfish and undeserving.

>>17578751
I mean we are talking about a book and in the book he defined everything properly. So now we are talking according to the information in the book that's why I don't want define those words according to my thinking.

Antinatalism threads on /lit/ are one of the few remaining things worth coming to 4chan for.

>>17578752
It was you affirming of philosophers that "They had no kids so technically they are antinatalists. Even if they were life affirmers they never practiced what they preached." And I say this isn't right, because one can think something is good without thinking it's good to do in one's particular situation, obviously. Or something can be good but not a duty.

>>17573745
Shit book

>>17578765
What is that definition?

>>17578768
My point is if pessimists are hypocrites for not killing themselves then life affirmers who don't procreate are also hypocrites.

>>17578762
>You have to pass on your GEEEENEES
Go back to /pol/ (Reddit)

>>17578779
Go read the book retard.

>>17578790
This

>>17578790
So where is that precise definition? Again, if life affirmer means "having kids is good", this isn't right, because one can think something is good without thinking it's good to do in one's particular situation, but good in most or in some other particular situation. Or something can be good but not a duty.

>>17578807
When you say that creating life is good then you're a hypocrite if you don't create more life.

>>17578802
>I won't define the words I use
>there is a precise definition somewhere, but it's up to you to find it
Why would I mine the book, you are the one who's arguing in its favour. You've read it, argue for it. Or did you forget what was in there? Nobody can talk rationally with you if you keep refusing to define the words you use.

>>17578792
No one cares, genetic dead end.

>>17578817
God you're braindead. Literally handicapped. And twice a homo, apparently.

>>17578823
If you haven't even read the book then what the fuck you're even doing itt
Holy fucking shit.

>>17578836
Answering all your dumb shit arguments. Nice to see that dumb book didn't help you one bit.

>>17578833
You're a braindead faggot too if you don't understand the simple words.

>>17578848
I refuted you using all possible definitions of "natalism" or "life affirming" I could think of. Meanwhile you can't even define it let alone answer me.

>>17578845
Holy fuck man.
You are a fucking pseud. I am retarded but not as braindead as you. Go read a book subhuman.

>>17578825
But you did by your original post.

>>17578856
What refutation you are talking about if you are even familiar with the basic terms of topic that you're arguing about.
READ THE FUCKING BOOK SUBHUMAN.

>>17578792
I'm talking to the white men here nigger.

>>17578862
>>17578875
So what does life affirming mean? Do you know? Why can't you argue for your philosophical stance with your own words, like any sane person expects you to?

>>17578901
Any "sane" person would have read the book before engaging in the argumentation.

>>17573745
>demoralizing breeders
This is not good. There are clearly some humans that are better than others at producing a high quality existence.

>>17578918
Not really no. I refute what you say, not a quote from that book. You're responsible for what you say, you're supposed to be able to defend it.

>>17578875
Not him, but expecting a normal person to perfectly understand esoteric, unintuitive jargon is retard tier

>>17578931
There is no refutation.
Read the book retard.

>>17578934
It's a literature forum for fuck sake. And everyone expects everyone to be well read on the topic before they start present arguments.

>>17578957
I refuted you with all reasonable definitions of the word. You know what I think? I think you don't have any particular definition in mind. You're just dodging the issue. I just skimmed through the book and CTRL+F'd it and I can't find any definition of "life affirming" or "natalist". Reading some passages I don't know why you think he has an especially unique definition of these words or why you can't spell it out then. It just seems to me to mean "people who think life is good" and "people who think having kids is good", respectively. Which are the definitions I assumed.

>>17578957
Well read doesn't mean knowing specific, undefined jargon from a specific book.

>>17578977
READ THE FUCKING BOOK SUBHUMAN

>>17578985
There is no "jargon" in it book. You can read it in one day. And author clearly presented his arguments in simple language.

>>17578957
If you read the book, give us a basic working definition.

>>17578792
>t. Minority currently living in a white country

Meme idea: "The 24 year old Refuter"

>Can't stop refuting arguments online
>Once refuted a user in the comment section of Bitchute
>Has refuted this meme

>>17578997
"Life affirming" is pretty much the definition of jargon, senpai

>>17578977
You're exactly right. Instead of providing tangible insights into the matter, he's just screaming read the book.

>>17579000
If you're familiar with the most basic terms about the topic then fuck off from this thread and read about the topic.

>>17579017
No it's not.

>>17579023
What is the point of arguing in a thread about a book that you haven't read?

>>17578986
>>17578997
You don't have any particular definition in mind you retard. You're a fucking pseud. I'm going through it and there is none. He goes straight into a "pro-natal bias" without defining pro-natal. You admit yourself it's simple language, and if he doesn't define the words before he uses them, I don't think he does long after. You said there was a precise definition and you're lying through your teeth, he clearly just means that pro-natal means people who think having babies is good, and life-affirming that life is good.

>>17579033
Arguing the specific point you make, dumbass. Which you should be able to defend yourself and not by appealing to a further reference you can't even remember.

>>17579024
If it's not jargon then it means what it sounds like, right? It means "people who think life is good"?

>>17579035
>I'm going through it and there is none.
Good, come back when you have finished it.

>>17579033
Because the book a part of a larger discussion on anti-natalism? And asking what key insights or new ideas the book brings (which is helped by a working definition of the principles) is the basis of discussion on the topic?

>>17579044
Have a (You) my illiterate retard.

>>17578036
Ecclesiastes is Essential /lit/ Antinatalist Kino. Mandatory reading for every poster.

>>17579045
I don't have to read carefully a whole fucking book to search for a definition to argue with you. You're running away from the argument. There is no such definition, I CTRL+F'd the book with "natalism" and there is no definition of pro-natalism, same with "affirming" or "affirmation". You use these words, you say they have a special definition, you should be able to provide it, or you shut the fuck up.

>>17579055
Read the book.

>>17579056
Yea this is like the 4th time you've made this kind of shit-tier 17 year old highschool student reply.

>>17579056
Almost no one on earth has read your retarded book, so until they do they can't respond to any of your anti-natalist argument because you refuse to define the words you use?

>>17579067
Come back when you have finished it.

>>17579068
Define the term.

>>17579079
Read the book you galaxy brained 200yo sage.

>>17579081
>please don't make me define the words I use

>>17575668
>OH MY GOD, NON-CHILDREN-HAVERS ARE ON THE RISE!!! THIS IS SUCH A BIG DANGER!!!

>>17579080
(You) for my illiterate friend.

This is like someone saying if you haven't read Das Kapital you can't criticise Marxism.

It's retarded and so are you.

Bimp

>>17579085
Read the book

>>17579090
>please don't make the read the book that I am arguing against

>>17579096
It is an appeal to authority, it's a logical fallacy, and definitely not a sound argument.

>>17579102
I went through a word search, there is no explicit definition of these expressions in this book. You are literally lying.

>>17579093
Yes.

>>17579096
No, this is like saying you can't criticise Das Capital if you haven't read Das Capital.

>>17579109
Come back when you have finished it.

>>17579129
So you admit there is no definition of these expressions? That you are lying? If not where are they in the book?

>>17579145
Come back when you have finished it.

>>17579150
lel ok pseud, you're a liar, you don't even know the book yourself. You didn't even know he doesn't explicitly define those terms when you asked me to use the book's definition.

>>17579160
Come back when you have finished it.

>>17579102
We're not arguing against the book. We're arguing against the larger topic its regarding.

>>17579164
imagine being this person

>>17579168
But you should be familiar with basic concepts.

>>17579176
Come back when you have finished it.

>>17579164
>>17579150
>>17579129
>>17579102
>>17579087
>>17579081
>>17579068
>>17579045
>>17579033
>>17578986
>>17578957
>>17578875
>>17578862
>>17578802

Terminal autism

>>17579203

don't care
didn't ask

i will see through the yoke of monogamy and create a harem of perpetually pregnant women, raising my progeny with love and care (homeschooled) to be literal supermen. our clan will suffuse all institutions, public and private, dominating the subhumans and change the face of the earth.

.

>>17578383
>>17578407

Apologies, let me rephrase - the decision to create a life and have it exist precedes a will entirely, therefore it is without will (rather than 'against' a will, which I agree doesn't make sense since the child doesn't exist yet).
However, I maintain that the mere act of creating a life isn't itself sacred, and the default existence of that life does not form the foundations of a moral/ethical argument for its persistence and/or struggle on the earth. My point was that breeders create an illusiory rationale for living based on their own experiences and wants alone, and can't understand how that base rationale keeps the entire cycle of suffering in motion.

>>17579418
>breeders create an illusiory rationale for living based on their own experiences and wants alone

Yeah that's exactly been my line of thought as well.

What a bunch of soulless cowards
enjoy your solitude in old age

>>17579315
based

>>17577936
Then he read the bible and became (a certain radical kind of) Christian.

>>17579593
>admitting to having children for egoistic reasons

>>17579678
Yeah that's the time when his dick stopped working.
His "spirituality" was no better than the belief in UFOs.

>>17579697
I wonder what disheartened you, what made you give up on it all

Know you have nothing but my pity

>>17579716
UFOs exist though

>>17579741
No need to pity us, dear breeder. Spare us your pity. It's a shame you can't be made to see reason, and realize the error of your ways, but such is life, sometimes.

>>17579697
Why wouldn't I do egoistic things? I love myself.

>>17579772
But can you say for sure that you truely know yourself?

>>17579741
I feel pity for you that you will bring corpses in the world just to fulfill you selfish desires.

>>17579817
Cute corpses!

>>17579770
>you're obviously dumb if you don't agree with me
Please stop squandering the life you've been given, you are mistakenly under the impression that humans bow to reason.

>>17579817
They'll be corpses at the end sure, that we die is what gives meaning and beauty to the fleeting span of a human life. You have seen the void and wavered.