/lit/ - Literature

Riddle me this, anti-natalists –
>why haven’t you killed yourself yet
>why should I care about the suffering of others?
>why do you think that just because you’re a mopey loser that everyone else is too?

>>15283241
anything by pic related

>>15283259
Based

>>15283259
>why haven’t you killed yourself yet
I'm already alive. I now have a responsibility in the world. Suicide is completely contrary to the idea and I already die anyway.
>why should I care about the suffering of others?
Definitely don't have a kid if you don't but idk. What advantage would a child give you if you don't care about others? A free slave?
>why do you think that just because you’re a mopey loser that everyone else is too?
I'm not a mopey loser though. Successful and rather content. It took a lot of work and there's still work to be done. Not only was I super lucky (lotta people lived under pol pot) but I had to suffer to get here and I've had to acknowledge every gain in life is an illusion I won't mind losing. You leave the world with everything you came in with.

Where's that "suffering isn't bad" retard. I have want to say something to him.

>>15283346
> I now have a responsability in the world.

Part of that responsability is to have offspring.

>>15284105
>Part of that responsability is to have offspring
Why? Seems more irresponsible than anything.

Imagine having children so they can spend their lives at work paying off government dept.

>>15284118
It's your purpose, you were brought to the world to bring new life into the world and so on. By definition, it's the responsible thing to do.

>>15283259
Hello, based department?

>>15284205
>purpose
Where did I get that from? I think your making it up.

>>15284205
I was brought into this world because two fucking uneducated idiots had unprotected sex 28 years ago. There is no purpose.

>>15283346
>I'm already alive. I now have a responsibility in the world. Suicide is completely contrary to the idea and I already die anyway.
If life is so horrible and full of suffering should you strive to end it as soon as possible since it’s so great not to be? Yes we die, but why endure?

“Muh resposibility” is stupid if it’s not what

>>15284269
Look, if I kill myself, I bring in more suffering for others. Other people depend on me. Further, I didn't have a choice to exist but now I have a choice and despite the fact that everything I gain for myself will be lost, I could at least do a little good. It won't be a net good but I can be better than someone who goes through life without being conscious of the absurdity and try to make it less bad. The ship of suffering has already sailed, might as well make the best of it.
But I wont put an offspring in the same position. My potential offspring havent suffered a wink yet. They have no need for help yet. And theres always a chance that if they were born they dont rise to the challenge and make the best of it. Or worse, they are retarded or would be unlucky enough to get the junko or pol pot treatment. Better that they never are in the first place.

>>15284228
From science, Bio 101 the purpose of living things is to reproduce.
>>15284236
Seems to me they did fulfill their purpose. They had sex. Try it.

>>15284382
Purpose... And what does this purpose lead to ultimately?

>>15284382
lmao, if anything biology should have made you realize that life doesnt have a purpose at all but is well adapted to facilitating reproduction. And then physics would have shown you that the sun explodes, Andromeda devours the Milky Way, and everything ends at absolute zero by way of entropy, not a lick of it having anything to do with whether life propagated past single cell organisms or at all.
OP's pic is you btw.

>>15283241
I had my son precisely so that he can suffer. He will suffer and he will grow to hate the world. And then he will take his revenge upon it and faggot like you who are to pussy to add to the glorious orgiastic carnage of the world. He will piss on your twitching gasping corpse gargling for air as it chokes on blood and its own severed penis.

>>15284382
>From science, Bio 101 the purpose of living things is to reproduce.
Neither science nor Bio 101 presuppose any sort of ultimate purpose, universal or individual.

Are you pretending to be retarded, or are you actually a midwit ?

Why don't anti-natalists try kill as man people as possible? Surely this is the only logical method of decreasinsg net suffering. This way not only do the most amount of people cease suffering, but they won't bring children into the world to suffer.

>>15284896
Yes, why not beat suffering by causing suffering? Very gotcha. How will they ever recover.

In all seriousness though, that glove from the capeshit movies being used to instantly and painlessly disappear all life, or even better, accelerate the universe to absolute entropy, might do the trick. My hope is that the great filter is just intelligent species realizing how fucked it is to endlessly propagate and calling it quits.

>>15284896
You assume all anti-natalists care about pre-existing suffering. For me it's about preventing future suffering. Not that I expect apes to stop breeding, but I can make the logical decision to stop.

>>15283241
>anti-natalist bugmen
CRINGE

>>15285398
>natalist bugmen
CRINGE

>>15283241
>pro-birth bugmen
There's no such thing, antinatalist views are antagonistic by nature.

>>15285407
>antinatalist bugmen retard
CRINGE AND BLUEPILLED

>>15285466
based

>>15283241
Western liberal normie worldview is essentially antinatalist even if they do not realize it consciously. Hence why such philosophies can gain any traction at all.

The best refutation of anti-natalism is nothing to do with its arguments, only that, like all self-destroying moral systems, it ensures the replacement of its believers by non-believers.

>>15285466

>>15285466
congratulation you won the internet today by refuting antinatalism with based and redpilled memes

>>15283950
My suffering is bad. Your suffering is good.

>>15283259
>>15285466

based

>>15285398
>>15285407
>>15285466
Having kids is literally NPC behavior. Dude just obey your programming it worth it. Dont question your insticts just cuck your life so your kid can grow up, not question their programming, cuck their life, and so an and so on until the sun explodes and it was all fucking retarded. OPs pic is you.

>>15285742
Got 3 kids. Family is better than no family, we all have a good time. But you do you.

>>15285828
>have kids
>still on 4chan
you have already failed as a parent

>>15284105
says who?

>>15285742
>Having kids is literally NPC behavior
quite the opposite actually

>>15284205
>It's your purpose, you were brought to the world to bring new life into the world and so on.
Nice try.

>>15285398
>>15285407
only based guy itt

>>15285828
lame larper

>>15285898
cope

>>15285870
lol bunch of kids in a comment section don't prove anything
every single married couple around me shit out a baby in the first year of their marriage.

>>15285903
I have 4 kids myself. One more than you, therefore, I'm superior. But you do you, larper.

Still haven't gotten an answer to this one.

Life is in part defined by reproduction. If reproduction is immoral then life is immoral. If life is immoral then why should any lifeform care that what they are doing is immoral?

>>15285934
every single anti-natalist around me is a basedboy reddit tier cuck who cope with their misfortune by mindlessly subscribing to anti-natalism

>>15285940
lame larper

>>15285966
cope

Suffering isn't bad.

>>15285971
I have 5 kids myself. One more than you, therefore, I'm superior. But you do you, larper.

>>15285960
if your understanding of an idea have been shaped by looks of other people then it's flawed.
but at the end of the day it's your own personal choice and experiences.

>>15285982
lame larper

>>15286001
not so much the looks but the mentality of these manchildren (although their outward appearance reflects their stunted psyche). People who profess anti-natalism or choose to remain childless are usually the Virgils and Beckys of the world, either as a coping mechanism (more the former) or blunt selfishness (more the latter).

>>15286014
cope

>>15286055
i'd argue that having children is also a coping mechanism or blunt selfishness.

>>15285877
>>15284774
>>15284478

Eat. Survive. Reproduce

We're animals. It is encoded in our DNA to reproduce, that's how evolution works. Our biological objective is to have offspring. That is effectively, by definition, our purpose. Unless you believe we are hylomorphic beings, in which case you obviously wouldn't be anti-natalist.

>>15286082
not much of an argument, but you do you.

>>15286087
>not much of an argument
just like yours

>>15286099
>just like yours

>>15286108
nice argument

>>15283241
>Better Never to Have Been
How can you know this? There's no point of reference from being to non-being. It's the reason why we fear death. Antinatalists are a bunch of muh feels cowards.

>>15286114
thanks

>>15283346
>I now have a responsibility in the world
Proof?

> Benatar (anticipating people's obvious retort that they feel happy to have been born) claims that people should not necessarily be believed in their judgment about the value of their own experiences (a potentially ethically-slippery -- yet perhaps justifiable -- argument). At the same time, he seems to violate this rule by appealing to people's own intuition about the pain/pleasure balance in order to make key points -- notably asking whether anyone could really accept the worst imaginable pain for the sake of the best imaginable pleasure. Never mind that this particular appeal seems unconvincing since we can readily recall people throughout history who have accepted extreme torture for the sake of simple principles (principles the adherence to which -- presumably -- gave them a certain form of pleasure).

> More to the point, Benatar also claims that the most intense pleasures we can have seem always short lived, compared with the most intense pains, which tend to be more enduring (e.g., chronic pain exists, but there is no such thing as chronic pleasure). Similarly, he claims that instant pains can have a more devastating impact on the duration of one's life (e.g., strokes), than instant pleasures can have a beneficial impact on the rest of one's life. But a lot of people could plausibly retort that they were genuinely changed (for the better) by the pleasure they experienced, say, on the day of their success at an important exam (which permanently raised their confidence -- and, thus, the quality of the rest of their life). Or -- to use the ironic example -- think of how the pleasure a person feels on the day of his or her child's birth or wedding might genuinely (and positively) change him or her.

>>15286280
In the end, more advanced longitudinal brain studies might perhaps better settle this particular matter. Still, something in Benatar's approach seems conceptually weak: he is at his weakest in his two-dimensional conception of pleasure as a uniform matter of duration and intensity. I think pleasure has at least one more dimension -- which is the diversity of its forms and orders. Benatar tangentially alludes to this issue when he discusses the pleasures that could be gained from increased knowledge or aesthetic cultivation, for instance (as opposed to, say, sexual orgasm). But, here, his argument fails even more dramatically, I think. He does little more than pointing out that the domain of the unknowable, for instance, is far larger than that of the knowable -- as if this were, somehow, a problem. (To me, this sounds like a "greedy" complaint -- complaining that our inability to reach greater or even infinite satisfaction somehow spoils the little satisfaction we can in fact reach.)

Finally, Benatar reawakens the old Schopenhaurean argument that most of our desires in life remain unsatisfied (and desire itself is painful until it is satisfied). This is a more sophisticated issue, I think, and I have seen it addressed better elsewhere (see Reginster in "Nietzsche on Pleasure and Power"). My own take on it is that the general experience of desire itself involves a basic/preliminary degree of satisfaction. (In fact, this is one way of interpreting the human vulnerability to addiction -- as I seem to recall reading recently.)

In short, this is an important book. But its basic argument is ultimately unconvincing (and the burden is, after all, on the anti-natalists).

>>15283241
>pro-birth
Reproduction is the default, it is what men and women are designed to do. Only spiteful mutants, with their malformed minds, would think otherwise. And they should NOT reproduce.