/lit/ - Literature

>>16407743
It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved. This goes for all things in life.

Anti-natalists strike me as the next iteration of the "nothing matters bro, everything is horrible" group. Like their predecessors, they'll grow up with time.

>>16407743
The meaning is to advance humanity in whatever way desired.

>>16407743
this post fucking reeks of reddit

Endless raw dogging in your youth is definitely worth it

>born an inherently, naturally political and social animal in a world of a million crafts, tasks and missions to take, and a trillion necessities to fulfill
>can not find meaning

Kill yourself

>>16407829
demand drops, economy goes to hell. what necessities?

>>16407791
I am an anti-natalist because the position of the natalist is one of privilege. Because suffering has negative value and happiness has null value, a single consciousness that wishes to no longer exist or to have never existed supersedes all wishes of natalists to exist.

Example: poor nigger in africa tortured to death by boko haram, his thoughts during this process are "I wish I was never born and this was never a possibility." this wish means that all of human/animal experience is invalidated, because all of the (null) happiness in the world cannot make up the debt of a single tortured being. or as schopenmemer apparently put it
>compare the suffering of the devoured animal to the pleasure of the devourer

To be a natalist is to necessarily be entitled to the horrific suffering of others, which is an evil sense of entitlement.

>>16407857
>the 2d model of the world I created for myself is failing me what ever will
I do

>>16407864
>Because suffering has negative value and happiness has null value
I disagree with both claims here. Perhaps it is because of the religion I follow, but I see them as one and the same. Happiness IS suffering, suffering IS happiness. There is no difference.

>>16407864
>happiness has no meaning and suffering has all meaning because muh feelings
>should have never been born because bad things may happen

Fag

>>16407743
if our entire purpose in life is to create new life, doesn't this mean that there will be repercussions for not fulfilling this?

>>16407857
>b-b-b-but what if bad things happen, how can I find meaning in carving my way out of a bad situation
That would require you to be a grown man

>>16407876
>>16407907

>Happiness IS suffering

oxymoron. if I gave you the choice between cooming or me tearing your nuts off with a pair of pliers, we both know which you would pick. suffering is literally the antonym of happiness. also I should clarify that I will ultimately argue from an emotivist position, i.e. that morality is an expression of emotion and therefore there is no rationality to so-called morality. either you have compassion or you do not, these are simply switches/unconscious biases that arise in the brain. i see no reason to remove my bias (this does not mean it should not be examined though). the extreme difference between the on/off switch would be let's say an overly sensitive schoolgirl who cries at the mere thought of a sick puppy versus a BTK tier psychopath.

people who have compassion are good, and people who excuse or even revel in suffering are bad. source: my emotions, no justification needed. from an aesthetic point of view it should also be noted that animals mostly lack compassion so those who excuse it are on the level of a retarded woodland creature, and therefore worth disdain on mental grounds. of course, most people do have some limited compassion, but to justify the immense suffering of others on your own behalf (via natalism) is inexcusable by my estimation via the schopenhauer example.

>>16407931
>is told he is appealing to emotion
>embraces it
On today's news, clearly unintelligent man quickly allows the opponent to dictate the terms of the conversation, mistakes basic self preservation instinct for emotion, thinks emotivism is valid and more!

Also

>claims morality is an expression of raw emotion unfiltered
>you are intellectually inferior if you aren't capable of morality

>>16407986
No one told me I was appealing to emotion. Also I do not appeal to anyone's emotions but my own. That's what emotivism is.

>intellectually inferior
*aesthetically inferior, there is a difference. you can be a genius psychopath. they are aesthetically inferior by my own estimation but many would agree with me given further argumentation under their own standards. that was just a minor point though, because some extreme cases will argue for psychopaths (see the might is right thread).

tl;dr not an argument

>>16407743
>Soulless bugman makes soulless, boring cartoon doodle
Epic dab

>>16407791
>"nothing matters bro, everything is horrible" group
Prove them wrong

Life has no meaning, thus it's not immoral to have children. They will have their moments of happiness and sadness, and bring you mostly happiness. They're free to decide if they want to commit suicide or fight in this world

>>16408009
>"muh feelings" is not directly telling you that you're appealing to emotion
>"but it's MY emotion!"
Because that is so much better

>maybe if I use the word aesthetic it will sound as if I know what I'm talking about

>>16408031
>fight in this world
people who view the world essentially as a fight trying to convince people that live in it is perfectly fine and dandy.

>>16408110
I don't see any argument against emotivism. Emotivism is not an appeal to emotion, it simply states that moral statements are expressions of emotion and are not truth-apt. I never said
>you should agree with my argument because think of this emotional sentiment you might have
I did say
>My "morality" is based on my irrational emotions like everyone else and none of my moral statements can be said to be true or false, they are just opinions

Point being, anti-natalism or natalism are feels, not reals. You can look at the condition of living creatures on earth and feel emotionally compelled one way or another, it's just an attitude.

>aesthetic
It's not a big word buddy and nobody was pretending it was, make a real argument faget

>>16408132
Fight, struggle.
I never said it's "fine and dandy", you illiterate. It's both pleasant and painful, whereas death is neither. The choice is up to everyone. I decided to live, because I will die eventually anyway, so why would I hasten it? I don't mind suffering and I like pleasure. Sleep is kind of like short term death, I'd like to imagine, and it's enough to keep me satisfied. Without sleep I could not live.

>>16408156
You're misusing the word aesthetic, and coupled with the rest of your argument it basically boils down to "thing done in a fashion that I personally dislike."

The problem with your line of thought is the cop out to say that "it's just the way I subjectively feel about this and therefore it can not be rational" when talking about morality, because in all reality a rational animal that is born and raised in a rational civilization is one that has very much rational roots to their emotional reactions, being even able to experience emotional reaction when exposed to abstract concepts like "natalism or anti-natalism", or any philosophical concept they agree or disagree with.

The human mind is wired to be advanced and rational, to think logically about everything, functioning even at an unconscious level. Your emotional reactions are more sophisticated than you believe, and they are

Nihlism renders both natalism and anti-natalism nil

Being a breeder is as close to being a real NPC meme as you can be

>>16408195
>You're misusing the word aesthetic

I'm not. I argued that psychopathic behavior is aesthetically displeasing (i.e. less beautiful and therefore emotionally disturbing) to myself and most others, and that natalism is closer to the psychopathic end of the spectrum than the compassionate side. But that was literally an irrelevant aside.

Give an example of how
>a rational animal that is born and raised in a rational civilization is one that has very much rational roots to their emotional reactions, being even able to experience emotional reaction when exposed to abstract concepts like "natalism or anti-natalism", or any philosophical concept they agree or disagree with.

means that moral statements are truth-apt.

>>16408223

>Having a child brings the possibility that negative experiences may happen to them, thus it is inherently morally inferior to the act of not having a child which negates that any positive experience happens to them
Beautifullly retarded

>Give an example of how.....means that moral statements are truth-apt.
If there is rational thought applied to it then it obeys the limits of rationality, reason and logic, and is employed through the mind's natural search for the truth and internal logical consistency created with external facts.

>>16408261
>inherently morally inferior

I didn't argue this, there is no such thing. morals are just feels, I only feel it's inferior. and you only feel it's good. you are arguing that your statement, "anti-natalism bad" is somehow a statement of fact, and not an expression of emotion. how is "thing bad" a fact and not just your opinion? explain in steps.

also, I am not trying to actually convince anyone ITT that anti-natalism is objectively or even subjectively "true", but that either way you lean about it is just a feel, and that you are being retarded for thinking it's not a feel, and that furthermore your own feels are probably not what you say they are in this instance because they are not coherent with other common feels you likely claim to have. that is why I gave the schopenhauer example: most people think that they feel happiness justifies suffering in the world, but when presented with that example, they see that they might not feel that way.

>>16407743
Love is always worth it, and what better to pass on to a child than a life in which love is possible?

>>16408280
Yea, morals are just emotional knee-jerk reactions, that's why they are debated and argued actively, consciously and rationally for the last 2000 years and probably through most of recorded history starting with the ancient greeks and probably going further back.

The key to all of this is that you need standards in order to have measurements. The standard for morality is what attains the most happiness and good living for the human species, and not having children leads to its eventual extinction, which is bad for the species.

>>16408302

>Yea, morals are just emotional knee-jerk reactions, that's why they are debated and argued actively, consciously and rationally for the last 2000 years and probably through most of recorded history starting with the ancient greeks and probably going further back.

That's not the point dummy. Just because there are plenty of intelligent arguments for moral rationalism doesn't make it true.

>The key to all of this is that you need standards in order to have measurements. The standard for morality is what attains the most happiness and good living for the human species

This is not standard or intuitive to human beings, given that it was not the dominant opinion in the west until a few hundred years ago and even later elsewhere. People had other ideas like prioritizing God's nonhuman and mysterious will, or that some people were born to suffer in a just manner. Emotivism != everything is permitted and that you should just let people do whatever they want, it simply means that moral statements are not truth-apt as I have said a thousand times. I agree that it's probably good for most people to believe that their morality is based on reason, but that's just realpolitik. But when I say "good" I mean "good based on my feels, and I assume your feels are similar to mine on this matter based on your previous statements, so we agree that we both feel it's good." I just don't agree with you that the impetus for an individual to feel positively toward a moral statement is rational.

What is life is arbitrary. What is Life however is worth reproducing

>>16408347
If any theory pertaining to morality is going to be true, it is going to be one that can be verified empirically as being the objective standard to morality, and an objective standard can only exist with object measures.

>that is not intuitive to human beings

Invariably, down right to instinctively, humanity has created civilizations that naturally ascribe to themselves morals and regulations to combat negative behavior aiming towards the enhancement of the lives of the tribe and the society as a whole, including even in native tribes in South America and Africa. Even (and some would say specially) religiuousbeliefs are aimed towards the conservation of the surviial and happiness of humanity.

>>16408519
just stop lad. read some books.

>>16407864
>>16408021
Its not an entitlement, its a responsibility to make the world perfect (as best as we can). A child doesn't understand this perspective. You dont have the option not to if you really understand your responsibility. Also please follow your logic through and kill yourself. You won't be missed. That goes for all antinatalists.

>>16408554
>its a responsibility to make the world perfect (as best as we can)
I'm sure the trillions of beings sacrificed in the meantime will appreciate it...

>>16408554
Children are the ones who want to improve the world. Adults are the ones who want to end it..

>>16408554
The leader of anti natalists did kill himself. Where's your argument now?

>>16408554
>Also please follow your logic through and kill yourself. You won't be missed. That goes for all antinatalists.

I'm not actually an anti-natalist, I'm a transhumanist playing devil's advocate. My solution to the human problem is way more autistic but I think anti-natalists are on the right path, they just have a few critical flaws. They really should just kys by their own logic though, unless they are the type who would kill everyone else but themselves which is coherent for its own reasons.

>children

Children are irrelevant, anti-natalism works for animals too who are dumber than children. The fact remains that for one happy moment to exist, a mountain of excruciating bloodshed must occur (mostly in nature via predation, but to a less extreme degree consumerist economies leeching off developing nations), and so the natalist at heart feels entitled to the suffering of others and hopes it won't happen to them. It is like playing a lottery where the winners take all and the losers are slowly flayed alive, and saying this is a good thing.

>>16408527
if you did some reading yourself you'd see that both societal and personal standards can count as moral but where it actually matters, it's religion, culture and nation that dictate morality.

>>16407743
A soulless leftist bug made this comic.

>>16407917
a century ago industrial revolution made most of the peasants useless neets, and these grown up men killed each other in two world wars and several genocides for half a century. excellent meaning in life!

>>16408282
yeah, in the age of camwhores and sex robots.

>>16408656
That has nothing to do with anything.

I'm thankful I was born. I was given an opportunity to make the planet better for generations to come. Sad that many people don't want this though.

>>16407864
so wrong post, lol
Please think about all the junkies, giving everything they have, agreeing to suffering for just one more shot

So its the opposit, JOY has value and suffering might be a price of IT

Fortunately antinatalism can't be passed on geneticaly

>>16407791
>It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved.
Of course a natalist would spout this kind of dumbass falsehood in the very first post.

>>16408209
Shut up reddit

>antinatalists
pic related is an antinatalist thread
antinatalists should be rounded up and ******** because they are a threat to mankind

>>16407743
yes. why? because:
a person that wishes to not exist is a wish that can be granted.
but,
a person that never gets to wish to keep existing is a wish that can't be granted.

>>16407864
>privileged and evil and entitled, to make a person
you'd have to unpack that

>negative value
isn't real. for ex: the stock market has no upper limit, but it's lower limit is 0. the stock market can only lose what it previously gained. there's no such thing as negative value, only the absence, or nullification, of positive value.

>a single consciousness that wishes to no longer exist or to have never existed supersedes all wishes of natalists to exist.

Analogy: a single driver that wishes to no longer drive or to have never driven supersedes all wishes of drivers to drive.

Conclusion: you are retarded and I want you to kill yourself.

>niggers
I'm not a natalist for all cases. Niggers should be sterilized, for ex.

>torture
I'd rather be tortured for eternity than not exist. nonexistence can't be valuable no matter how smart I am, since I wouldn't exist. being tortured can since I'd still have experience and interpretation.

>>16408877
>I'd rather be tortured for eternity than not exist.

>>16408883
this one is always funny because there are CIA spooks at black sites right now that would make you regret that in half a minute

>suffering/pleasure dichotomy
>20 goddamn 20

>Banatar's Asymmetry
the asymmetry works either way:
I can just as easily assign suffering as the null, and joy as the positive.
So not feeling joy would be negative, and feeling not feeling suffering would be null.

>the child didn't consent to being born
I don't need a fetus'/sperm's/ovary's consent before I put them onto the development path.
Moreover, I don't need the consent of something that can't give consent.
For ex: I don't need consent if I see an unresponsive victim and give them CPR. I only need the lack of negative consent (for ex: no DNR).

>>16408883
I'd have eternity to adapt to the pain. I wouldn't even notice it eventually.

you're just projecting your pain-based value system onto me. I don't assign values or establish prescriptions based on how I'm feeling, because that would be an appeal to nature fallacy. an animal's emotions in no way determine what is not good.

>>16408885
regret what, exactly?
I didn't say I want to be tortured.
I just wouldn't commit suicide no matter what my circumstances were.

>>16408877
Damn what a retard

>>16407743
If good can exist then it is our duty as a species to keep on existing so good can still exist. This does not mean that you, as an individual, have to reproduce or not kill yourself. This has only one exception: if good is the extinction of the human race, then you should do all that you can to fasten that extinction, which you are not doing. If good cannot exist, then your philosophy is mutt because it doesn't matter if one reproduces or not.
Notice that all these three hypothesis does not forbid you, OP, to kill yourself. Which you should do by all mean.

>>16408967
If I kill myself I won't be able to work towards the extinction of the human race

Humanity inherently has a will to persevere, what we do with it is our own. Just because you didn't want to be born doesn't mean a majority of people either want to be alive or dot not conceive of the question.

>>16408922
>I'd have eternity to adapt to the pain. I wouldn't even notice it eventually.
You're assuming that biological mechanisms like "habituation" operate in Hell.

>>16407743
https://youtu.be/u3mldSL6z2I

I’m a Natalist because I hate children and want them to suffer.

>>16408982
You can't have you cake and eat it too:
if you want to eliminate habituation, then you would need to restrict the brain from changing in response to the environment which also means short term memories never get solidified into long term memories.
thus, the eternity of suffering wouldn't feel like eternity.

if you want me to experience eternity, then you must let my brain react to the environment, and thus you open up the inevitability of me adapting to the pain.

>>16408999
>if you want to eliminate habituation, then you would need to restrict the brain from changing in response to the environment which also means short term memories never get solidified into long term memories.
what? you're acting like habituation (to pain) is an inherent property of consciousness rather than a specific nervous response. there is also the phenomena of sensitisation, where stimulus becomes more intense the more you are exposed to it.

>>16409013
no I didn't.
I said that the specific nervous response of habituation is inseparable from the sensation of time and formation of long term memories.
I never said anything about consciousness.
An analogy would be dreaming: you are still aware of your dream when sleeping, but night time still passes instantly because memory formation is stopped.

I suggest that you stop making rookie mistakes, like committing a strawman, if you want to compete against me here. Frankly, you're kind of boring me. If I had to guess you probably have a 115iq and a severe case of the dunning kruger effect :(

>>16408975
Alright but then you should try to become become President of your country and nuke China (lmaoing at you if your country doesn't have nukes), try to provoke industrial catastrophes, try to become a plane pilot and crash it, try to poison the water supply of your town, etc. If industrial and terrorist groups can do it, why not you? If you live somewhere where there is no death penalty you should at the very least try to stab a maximum of people and you can still publish manifestos like Ted. You're being inconsistent if you don't do your maximum to achieve the extinction of the human race. Your words will have more weight if you do something horrible like Ted did. But you won't. Why? Because deep down you don't believe in your ideology, you believe in good. And I believe in you anon, in day you will see that life is good, if not for you, then for others.

>>16409034
>I said that the specific nervous response of habituation is inseparable from the sensation of time and formation of long term memories.
I disagree. the reason I said consciousness is because I don't assume - and didn't think you'd assume - that there's any neurological connection between memory formation and pain perception, so I thought you were talking more broadly about conscious agents - who may exist materially or not, and who might hypothetically have the capability to get "used" to experiences in a non-physical sense.

>>16408922
>>16409034
>I didn't say I want to be tortured.
He said that you'd regret claiming you wouldn't choose suicide.
>I suggest that you stop making rookie mistakes, like committing a strawman
LMAO

>>16409034
also night time doesn't pass instantly for me when I sleep, what the fuck are you on

>>16409056
I wouldn't regret anything.
Ex: imagine you're captured and told that you will be tortured in one-minute increments. At the start of each increment you will be offered an option to die. If you refuse, then the next one-minute long torture increment will begin. After which, you will again be offered an option to die. This repeats for ever.

When do you choose to die? Before the first increment? After it? After 2? After 1000 increments?

Notice how every time a torture session ends, you would always choose to just delay your death by another minute. Ad infinitum.

Thus, suicide is invalid.

>>16409062
I meant sleep. You are truly living up to being a dunning kruger.

>>16409054
>there's no neurological connection between memory formation and pain perception

holy fuck. we're done here. I'm not going to waste my time engaging with a dunning kruger.

Wtf is this shit about making the world a better place? Exterminating the human race would make everything better.

>>16409076
>I get to choose the specific scenario under which my torturers operate
Leaving this aside,
>you would always choose to just delay your death by another minute. Ad infinitum.
Because you say so?

>>16409083
No, because in my ethical system life is fundamentally bad, but fun is fundamentally good. Exterminating human race will make this globe of dirt less fun.

>>16407743
I don’t understand this comic, surely when the parent meant meaning they meant the meaning in of itself of birthing and bringing up a child? Why does it become in the third panel as if they birthed the child to appeal to it for meaning?

>>16407791
No way, Antinatalism is the perfection of Godless rationality. It is the end goal of every atheist agnostic and occultist, whether or not they realize it. God had to save me from this stuff with personal mystical revelation.

>>16409104
>of itself of birthing and bringing up a child?
>Why does it become in the third panel
Maybe reread the second panel.

>>16408922
>regret what?

you would be begging them to kill you pretty fast idiot.

>>16409076
>I meant sleep. You are truly living up to being a dunning kruger.
You still experience the passage of time when you're asleep. Don't you anon?

>holy fuck. we're done here. I'm not going to waste my time engaging with a dunning kruger.

>>16409107
I agree that antinatalism is very "atheist" but that's not for any philosophical reasons, just emotional ones.

But you don't need to be part of any religion to come to the conclusion that ensuring the existence of the next generation is objectively imperative.

how do anti-natalists get around not immediately killing themselves? or perhaps killing others?

>>16409229
Wrong, if there is no God then you set your own standards of morality, if you do that then its at best based on empathy. If you take secular empathy to its logical conclusion, then you will be interested that nobody suffers from the suffering inherent to life.

>>16409097
You wouldn't feel the need to mask the pain friend because there would be no pain

>>16407864
>because suffering has negative value and happiness has null value
kek i cant imagine how cowardly and pathetic you must be in real life. i bet anything that this belief stems from chronic sloth and decadence fucking over your mind and body to the point where the slightest bit of discomfort or demand for effort on your part is horrific to you and on the flip side, you fill your life to the brim with hollow indulgences of instant gratification that inevitably fall flat and fail to bring you true joy

>>16407931
Joke is on you, CBT is my favourite fetish. What now?

>>16409276
>basing your morality on emotions
appeal to nature fallacy

>>16409356
What is emotional about empathy? Sympathy is the emotion related to empathy.

>>16409338
It's no suffering, just playful nociception. Sensory response by itself is not objective, people with congenital analgesia still can and will suffer even if they don't feel "pain".

>>16409243
antinatalism is a non-violent ideology of peace.

All life is suffering. So basically the solution is render the earth completely uninhabitable and to destroy all life.

>>16407743
Misery loves company.

>>16409574
I choose to break the cycle

>>16407743
Totally worth it for me; but then, I'm not silly enough to look for some profound meaning in life.

>>16409574
>>16410265
Tell me what is more noble - to leave the suffering misanthropes to their own fate and let them rule universe without your ideas, your altruism and your children, that they will harvest like a ripe fruit, ripe with blood and sweat; or to suffer alongside them for the thousand years trying to ease the pain of endless new generations, to make their life a little better, to give them tiny bit of humane love? It's good to see that weak western man decided finally abandon his humanitarian imperialism and leave this world for these ready to take it - Mormons and Amish, Evangelicals and Catholics, Red Chinese and Brown Indians - those who still breed. We will live in the interesting times.

>>16409530
Not uninhabitable, but remove human life.

>>16410518
we can't let them continue to exist

>>16410538
And to achive this goal what are you going to do? Steal nuclear codes? Convince your children that they should preach with you about antinatalism? :)

They fuck you up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had
And add some extra, just for you.

But they were fucked up in their turn
By fools in old-style hats and coats,
Who half the time were soppy-stern
And half at one another's throats.

Man hands on misery to man.
It deepens like a coastal shelf.
Get out as early as you can,
And don't have any kids yourself.

if your arguement is "people wish to have never existed" and the sadness of 1 outweights the combined happiness of many others across the world i say you are making claims which are hard or impossible to determine, if not then what is your further reasoning?

>>16410681
the amount of suffering far outweighs the amount of happiness

>>16407743
Just kill antinatalists, not only does this refute them it actually is saving them according to their own philo

>>16410830
then who will end the human race?

>>16410744
It's impossible to reasonably quantify suffering/happiness exchange rate, because amount of suffering exchanged for even small amount of happiness makes suffering worth it and seems fair (or almost fair) for billions of living people - otherwise they wouldn't be living and breeding.
>>16410840
Natalists. Aren't they evil enough?

>>16407743
if u think u hold this opinion and continue to exist ur just a poser

I have lived in this world my whole life, and I'd say it's been a good time.

>>16407829
It's not about finding meaning, it's about deciding for an as-of-yet non-existent person who cannot possibly consent that they should be brought into a situation where they must necessarily suffer and die. I don't feel that my life is without purpose, personally, and yet if you gave me the choice I would still rather never have been born.

>>16408672
good thing you arent them then retard

dopey cunts projecting their depression on the world

>>16410987
it's all about me right?

>>16410998
you act like it

>>16408877
Based

>>16411011
nice projection.

JUDGEMENTS PASSED ON LIFE HAVE NOT THE VALUE OF RIGHT OR WRONG MERELY OF SYMPTOMS

>>16411712
Calm down their Neetcha

>>16408031
The chart makes no sense. The death part shouldn't be a graph at all, since there is no one to experience anything there.

>>16409324
How do I get out of this cycle?

>>16407864
Ugly man posted this

Antinatalism is the culmination of slave morality. Most of Westerners are antinatalists by default.

>>16411964
FUCKING THIS

If meaning doesn't exist then why obsess over it?

>>16407743
>using personal existental failures to justify not having children
Sure glad they breed themselves out. Maybe the world really will get better if they cut themselves out of the gene pool. Meanwhile I hope to sow enough seed that I'll be leaving a beautiful metaphysical garden on this earth.

>>16410599
Also by Philip Larkin: 'How to Win the Next Election'

'Prison for the Strikers
Bring back the cat
Kick out the niggers
How about that?

Trade with the Empire
Ban the Obscene
Lock up the Commies
God save the Queen'

>>16407864
>Because suffering has negative value and happiness has null value

>>16411964
no sane human being would agree to live with you together, share same kitchen and bathroom. but children don't have a choice. children are slaves. natalism is slave morality.

>>16407829
>>born an inherently, naturally political and social animal in a world of a million crafts, tasks and missions to take, and a trillion necessities to fulfill
brainlet bugman materialist.

At this stage, the only aim of humanity should be to off itself so that the planet can recover. Just don't reproduce. And there's no reason to commit suicide now, since death will come eventually.

>>16407743
>Everyone is poor and has to resort to child-rearing
Try again chapotraphouse

>>16408830
>Nice logical fallacy bro
>>>reddit.com

>>16407986
Living is an appeal to emotion. Stop arguing like you have a reddit account.

>>16407864
>Happiness has a null value
Something is very wrong with you.

>>16412605
>there's no reason to commit suicide now, he said, gobbling up food grown in soil-wrecking postindustrial farmland and discarding the plastic trash in which it was delivered to him, every day
If you were intellectually honest you would go on a rampage through your nearest city's financial district and then put one in the roof of your mouth.

>>16412679
it wouldn't change anything

>>16408877
>that pic
>killing some social recluse in his sleep is totally a-ok guys
>consent is a social construct and therefore irrelevant
>13.8 billion (???) people have already died anyways

lmaoing at those edgy nihilistic idiots

>>16412779
>uggghhhhh changing the state of the world is HARRRDDDD don't make me do work to actualize my ideology that's gayy
Give it a try anyway. I'll find you in Hell and let you know how it panned out.

>>16412679
Antinatalism:
>Never being born.
>Don't have to suffer or kill yourself.

vs

The dumbfuck shit you proposed:
>Be born
>Have to go through the psychological distress of suffering enough to get suicidal thoughts.
>Have to then go through the distress of driving a knife to your own neck, hang yourself and hurt yourself lethally. (reminder that access to weapons or other effective suicidal methods is heavily restricted in 99.99% of the civilized world).
>"Rampage", making dozens of others who were already born suffer.

If you were intellectually honest you would stop typing, but you're legitimately impaired in the thinky parts. You should find a smooth-brain friendly thread.

>>16412866
>thinky-parts
You talk like a 16-year-old atheist trying to browbeat his parents into letting him stay home from Church, you mental defective.
You and all those involved are already born, and already condemned to suffer in varying degrees in life and in death. Concerned with causing more suffering? Spend some time at the range and pack enough rounds for a few dozen Mozambique drills.
>the civilized world
Your mindset is made perfectly clear. You are a coward in all aspects of life, and will die a coward's wizened, sniveling death.

happiness isnt valuable to the unborn. even if life had meaning and was perfect, that doesnt mean jack shit to an unborn being. you only value happiness because youre born into a world where happiness is valued. of course you (and i) like life. we have nothing to compare it to. you didnt choose to be born, so stop justfying it and making the choice for other unborn beings. im only against having kids.

stop tradlarping as a natalist because antintalism has a bad image on the internet. tradlarp as a theist, sure. make fun of those reddit atheists amirite heheh. but dont have kids. its the most selfish thing you can do. plus you are risking all the possible freak accidents and medical problems that you cant even imagine right now.

>>16412924
>Local burger can't imagine a country where access to firearms is restricted.
Smooth-brain.
Your understanding of anything related to suffering is so shallow and basic that it doesn't surprise me you defend natalism. Go spend some time with old people or ill people. They might give you an interesting perspective on life, and why sometimes it's not that easy to "just kill yourself" in a world that constantly terrorizes you religiously and psychologically with that taboo thought.
>HURR HURR COWARD COWARD SNIVELING
Yes I understand you are a smooth-brain. Try to empathize with people who are suffering more than you. Try to conceive that possibility. Try to conceive that there are people who legitimately want to be off from this life but are scared of the consequences of trying to kill themselves. Anti-natalists come across as cold hearted to most people here, from the perspective of those who enjoy life. But they have at least some degree of empathy towards those in great pain that you seem to might be missing.

>>16411736
That's why it's 0. Suffering is a negative value, happiness is a positive value. A living being experiences both +1 and -1 because they experience both happiness and suffering in their lifetime. Nonexistence means neither happiness nor suffering, so it is neutral.

>>16412980
If you are in great pain, kill yourself, and spare us your whimpering.

>>16407743
my life has meaning, I would enjoy having children, I would ensure they enjoyed life and found meaning by raising them properly
sorry your parents sucked

>>16412866
>Not going for Godfather III bath suicide/Quo Vadis Petronius death
AGMI
>>16412980
Extremly gay post. Don't kill yourself, you deserve to live and be humilated by women, elderly and children.

It's honestly depressing to imagine many of the natalists here tho talk about "I tolerate suffering, and enjoy the happy parts" going through some traumatic event that finally makes them understand what antinatalists are talking about.
Something that shows them no one was born antinatalist, they simply went through some experiences that gradually caused these ideas to form.
Whether it's themselves, or loved ones, going through one big horrible event, or several small ones that accumulate, statistically speaking at least some staunch life defenders here will change their mind at some point, and reluctantly be "well yeah actually I could die right about now... I guess I'll look up suicide methods... damn but will I go to hell if I do this... wait killing yourself is easy right you just take some pills... oh overdose hasn't worked since the 50's? ... fuck... why is euthanasia illegal in my country, I never thought this kind of bad thing would happen to me/my wife/my mother/etc... why am I being a coward, suicide is just a matter of making a rash decision right... fuck at the last second I hesitated and didn't do it right and now I'm a fucking vegetable... maybe if I blink they'll notice I'm here", and so on.
It's barely a question of if, and more of "how many", and why they can't realize this and empathize without experiencing it first hand.
It's really fucking disheartening.
One of my friend's father was the quintessential strong man, strong father figure. Around his 60's, diabetes problems were forcing doctors to amputate his leg, and he was saying "I'm not gonna let you, I'll kill myself first", and etc. Of course by that point they pumped him full of antidepressants against his will and whatnot, but people here don't really think about what they're saying when they spout shit like "I'll just tolerate suffering all my life".
I hope the best for everyone here, and that life never has to show you how stupidly wrong you are, thinking anyone suicidal is just "weaker" than you.

>>16413126
Empathy, my dear annihilist, is what gives me an appreciation for life and all of its terrible perils.
Non-existence is neither virtue nor sin.
Existence allows both virtue and sin, and neither can be found independently in the material.
I love the good, I love the virtuous, I love the kind and gentle and bold and strong, with such manic zeal that I will happily accept the suffering that is its consequence.
Before the antelope is eaten by the uncaring and joyful lion, it basks in sunlight, sleeps in shade, and eats sweet grass on the savannah.
Would your friend's father have traded all the joys of his long life away to remove the suffering of that lost leg?

>>16413126
Hot bath, strong poppy brew and sharp knife. How hard can it be? Also last part is refuted by people who went through true suffering and it only made them want to live - compared to these people antinalists are weak.

>>16407909
in corpus hermeticum it was written those who died without bringing anyone into earth first will be antagonized by demons after death. ridiculous take.

>>16413126
>thinking anyone suicidal is just "weaker" than you.

Bro if you can't handle life and kys you're obviously weaker than someone who doesn't. I'm suicidal and I admit that. Wtf kind of mental gymnastics are these?

>>16407743
Fuck you and die

>>16413235
You don't know all the variables involved, those people are a minority within the group of people who go through horrible shit (read something like "Two arms and a head"), and the success rate of cutting yourself on a bathtub is something like less than 20%, lol.

>>16413292
>Wtf kind of mental gymnastics are these?
Weakness is not the only way to explain it, and in my experience I have never seen a case where it is the explanation.
People who are suicidal suffered more and had less support systems. Literally everything the "strong" people in this board do is just survivor bias, cherry picking and etc.

To give you an example. If two women exist, both are equally physically fit, but one of them was abused as a kid and wants to kill herself as a result, is the woman who wasn't abused "stronger"? I think that's a nonsense way of thinking.

>>16413235
Sorry, I stand corrected. I looked it up now. Success rate of cutting yourself in a bathtub is 6%.

>>16413460
>those people are a minority within the group of people who go through horrible shit (read something like "Two arms and a head")
Good, we should strive for elitism.
>>16413532
How many of them are women? How many cut themselves good in both arms and legs and in proper pattern, that bleeds out fast and is hard to close? How many chickened out? Either way you just need to have around twenty hot and relatively painless baths.

lmao how many threads has it been about antinatalism without a single logical or coherent argument against antinatalism? thread #34343543534645654344958?

Sad how retarded /lit/ is I thought this was one of the smarter boards.

>>16413756
>Good, we should strive for elitism.
You don't have to, nature already does that by itself. Antinatalists understand that, and they also understand the existence of literal psychopaths like you, which is furthering their point.

>>16413790
Finding an argument against antinatalism is like finding an argument against schizophrenia.

>>16413304
interesting original argument, dood. never saw one such from anti natalists.

>>16407864
>e suffering has negative value and happiness has null value,
This is clearly the point of contention. What is the antinatalist argument here, surely happiness is a positive rather than null

>>16413820
exactly what schizophrenic would say

>>16407864
>suffering has negative value
I hate millenial dipshits so much

making pleasure or suffering the basis of your moral or ethical theory is the eternal brainlet take. you will literally never progress beyond the level of a child.
>oh no ouchie my life has no meaning stacy rejected me I scraped my knee ouch

>>16413884
I consider myself an antinatalist, but I don't particularly like that line of reasoning either. I don't think it is necessary, however. I think that the existence of suffering that ruins someone's quality of life is enough argument for antinatalism. It doesn't matter if happiness is a positive or not.
No amount of happiness can make you immune to suffering (and in practice it doesn't come even close to this, most people will have more "meh" or bad moments than happy ones out of the sheer nature of life and how our brains work for this reward system stuff).
But I believe there is a certain amount of suffering that makes you "immune" to happiness. There are instances of bad things that could happen to someone that leave them crippled, mentally damaged, whatever it is, that makes it impossible (at least with current medicine) to cure them and grant them a decent quality of life. So it doesn't matter if happiness is neutral or positive. The potential of suffering too much is a bet I wouldn't make with my own life if I was given the choice.
People here make it too, even if they don't admit it. You wouldn't give all of your money to a random stranger to go spend in a cassino on the off chance they'll give you some of their winnings if things go well. You'd be even more upset if they somehow did this against your will anyway, without your consent.
So how can we decide for someone else, our offspring, that life is worth it so much that we took this bet with them?

>>16413957
That's cope. Every antinatalist I have ever met has had some kind of serious shit happen in their life, or saw someone in their family dying gruesomely, or a non humane death, or some other kind of shit.

The "oh no ouchie my life has no meaning stacy rejected me I scraped my knee ouch" are usually the natalists, who believe suffering in life is restricted to these trivialities, and as such can be withstood easily (which is true, you can survive Stacy rejecting you with relative ease in most cases). Not every suffering is "Stacy rejection" level suffering though. Some things are worse and more destructive. Not every pain teaches you something. Many people like to cope with this stuff until something hard enough hits them that makes them fall down. And that's it.

>>16414014
>Many people like to cope with this stuff until something hard enough hits them that makes them fall down. And that's it.
Who gives a fuck why antinataltards claim to have come to think what they claim to think (they're all lying to themselves, their beliefs are unconscious cope). Suffering, categorically, is an infantile moral standard.

>>16414118
Suffering is the only moral standard. Every religion, every non-religion, everything in this planet that has to do with morals comes down to suffering, either yours, or the suffering you cause to others. Stop being an edgy fuck.

>>16407791
Yup. I was an antinatalist when I was 16. Now I'm an adult and think becoming a father would be great.

>>16407743
what would be an example (concrete or imaginary) of a life that does have a meaning?

>>16407829
Vanity of vanities....

>>16414182
I am the reverse. Was a hardcore natalist at 18 but then grew up

>>16407743
How come the only people who spout this "life is suffering" bullshit are super-well-off snobs who fave no hardships or real suffering in life? You have no obligations or unfilled needs with all the beauty and knowledge of the world in your reach and you spend all that drawing webcomics online. How pathetic of a human being do you have to be to end up with a meaningless life?

>>16407814
I only fucked like 3 different chicks before I turned 18, only ever used a condom for anal cause every female is on birth control.

Did I miss out bros? I was in a committed relationship from 15 - 17 so I never got a chance.

>>16414272
>How come the only people who spout this "life is suffering" bullshit are super-well-off snobs who fave no hardships or real suffering in life? You have no obligations or unfilled needs with all the beauty and knowledge of the world in your reach and you spend all that drawing webcomics online. How pathetic of a human being do you have to be to end up with a meaningless life?
Everythign you just said is in your schizo imagination. You really think if someone in a poor neighborhood hates life and wants to die or not have kids you'd hear about it? Go fuck yourself schizo biased piece of shit.

>>16407743
Serious question for anti-natalists: Why not kill yourselves?
If living is worse than being dead, then you'd be better off dead than alive and suffering.

>>16413998
>I think that the existence of suffering that ruins someone's quality of life is enough argument for antinatalism
Isn't this really just an argument for easily accessible euthanasia for those who want it, or at least a reversal of stigma on suicide?

>>16408195

Not him and you two are several tangents out on your retard fight, but him more-or-less saying "the basis of my argument is that I don't like thing" is far more honest than most thinkers, who at bottom are largely motivated by the same simple consideration.

I do find myself disagreeing at least in part with his earlier assertion that rationality and emotion/"emotivism" etc are divorced from each other. In this, I am influenced by current reading. I've started reading pic related and Habermas' conception of rationality is that it is based on reason(s), and the possibility that, in principle, you can present an argument to defend your views. As he indicates, this can be done with strictly logical series of statements, but it can also be done (admittedly with somewhat less intellectual force) with ethical arguments, aesthetic opinions, etc.

When someone says "I like X because it makes me happy/I dislike... because ... unhappy", this is close to a tautology. It's a reason, but it's an obvious sort of reason which usually goes without saying. An ethical/aesthetic opinion can be defended somewhat better by giving more specific reasons.

Kill antinataliats lol, by thier own definition it would be doing them and the world a favor.

>>16414674
would you recommend that Habermas stuff? I see people sometimes mentioning him in contexts that seem interesting, but the actual material looks rather dull. All the moral handwringing about the calamities of Nazism seems especially boring

>>16414709

I read the Public Sphere book and it was actually interesting, although the prose is regularly academic and long-winded. I'm only 20 pages into this turkey but it's an interesting 20 so far.

>>16413509

Yes, obviously. Being abused makes you weaker, that's why it sucks so much. Strong doesn't mean good and based, it just means strong.
In the previous example about your friend's father you mentioned him having diabetes. Diabetes makes you weaker, disease makes you weaker, that's why it sucks so much. If it didn't make you weaker it wouldn't be a problem.
I don't see why this is a difficult concept.

>>16407791
>It is better to have loved and lost than to have never loved
trite giftshop t-shirt tier shit. This is one of the heaviest copes man has created.

>If I have a child there is a 100% chance he will be a born sinner and therefore already have hell waiting for him
>Even if I try to coddle the child as much as possible and raise him christian, in today's world there is a very very large chance he will not accept jesus christ as his saviour
>therefore it's far more likely that any child I make will just be hell fodder than it is likely they'll enter the pearly gates
>all this I know before I even bust inside the woman
>Therefore it is a consciously evil act to procreate, essentially making a person for the sole purpose of burning in hell for all of eternity

Checkmate, christcucks

>>16415176
To me having a weak body and a weak mind are two different things. Suicidal people might have weak bodies due to disease and abuse, but I don't think killing yourself is a sign of a weak mind. I think that's just cope people tell themselves to think of themselves as brave or strong for withstanding their possible to withstand sufferings.

>Lol some diabetic guy amputated his leg and wanted to kill himself. I don't know anything about his life but his mind must be so weak. I totally wouldn't do it if it happened to me. I once bumped my elbow and it got swollen and my pet fish died on the same day, but I survived and I'm super strong.

It's ridiculous to even argue this shit. Same goes for people who say "suicide is easy". It's literally just teenagers, or actually completely ignorant people, who have no idea what they're saying. Like you don't even have to think that hard to realize how wrong that is, but it's tiring to make the same arguments again and again.

>>16408731
This

>>16408877
>why just humans?
>[long post literally just saying “because then everything would be dead]
I’m so confused by many of these interactions.

>believe life has meaning
there, I refuted you.
>p-prove life has
no. I have no obligation to do anything you say, im having 9 kids

>>16415291
Who says we are born sinners, anon?

>>16415354

I don't give a fuck what you think. Diabetes makes you weaker, ask any diabetic. You just want to be right. No one in their right mind would argue that diabetes makes you stronger.
Again, strong doesn't mean good and virtuous and based. It just means strong.

> It's literally just teenagers, or actually completely ignorant people, who have no idea what they're saying.

So you're saying ignorance isn't a form of weakness? Or at least that ignorance doesn't make you weaker? You're THIS close to saying ignorance is strength lmao. Reevaluate yourself.

is there a valid argument in favor of antinatalism?

(spoiler: there isn't)

there is no meaning of life, only distraction from it.

>>16407743
This comic only happens when one turns away from God. We exist to glorify Him and do His will. Anything else is secondary.

>>16407743

>>16415548
Easy. I don't want kids.

We have this thread every fucking week and it always fall into the same ad hominem attacks and poor arguments of both parts.

>>16407791
>Love
Vanity.

>>16407829
Millions of meaningless tasks are meaningfull

>>16414166
>suffering is the only moral standard

That's where you're wrong.

>>16407909
I love how beautifully retarded that is. Never change.

>>16416033
Yeah, it's great.

Cry more, our children will inherit the earth

>>16414166
> NOOOO NOT MY HECKING SUFFERINOS NNOOOO
Grow a spine, you gross faggot.

Average antanatalist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmpmOidm_aM
The absolute state

>>16414698
Based.
Suicide is the logical conclusion of antinatalism. They either cant do it because theyre cowards or because theyre dishonest. So I say lets help them

>>16416033
It's because both sides are partially right but want to be wholly correct. The act of forcing life on someone is wholly indefensible. It is an unambiguous violation of consent -- you are performing an action which has arguably the greatest significance to anyone who has lived, or ever will: being born. You do it knowing that the baby has no say in its own existence, but you do it anyway. That said, I'm sure most of us could make a good case for the beauty of existence, in there being somebody to bear witness to patterns in the enormous complexity of the universe. The point where the debate breaks down is when you extend it from these two positions to things like "giving birth is morally indefensible, therefore nobody should give birth" or "life is inherently valuable, therefore there are no consent issues in childbirth." Both of these derivative arguments are retarded. Toss in a few dozen genuine retards and you've got a running thread on /lit/.

>>16407743
Imagine basing your identity on not wanting to have kids.
Just don't have them. Literally noone cares. There's an immigrant family that will more than make up for you.