/lit/ - Literature

>>16933512
pure ad hom

>>16933515
not to mention anecdotal

>>16933515
No he's right. Its all mental illness. Leftists really are mentally ill self hating freaks and its great they gravitate toward stuff like being sterile and getting abortions. Taking meds that effectively sterilize them. Whenever I meet a left leaning person I plant these ideas in their heads to make their lives worse and they go for it every time.

I have 2 kids myself.

>>16933512
>>16933515
It's depersonalization imho

The more sociable one is the less this tends to emerge, I don't view anti-natalism as being left or right wing, especially when looking at it's founders IE Schopenhauer

Only one detached from mankind at childhood to adulthood could understand

T.schizoid

>>16933515
>>16933519
Find an example of even ONE person in the entire world who defies this characterization. Like post one person from Twitter or anywhere

>The only people I know who want 4+ kids are what most people here would call "based".
Ahh yes, having children regardless of whether you can take care of them or not, having as many as possible, solely because of some legacy they’re supposed continue, where they have zero autonomy whatsoever. Very ‘based’ indeed, and a recipe for continued happiness, especially when you make your kids clear that you love them solely out of function, and not because you actually care about them as a person

>>16933525
>one person from Twitter
Outing yourself as a twitter fag lmao

>>16933523
if you genuinely believe this I advise you to get out more. Seems like your view of the world is from the window of your computer screen

>>16933525
benatar

>>16933532
ad hom. pretty weak also.

>>16933512
Because they're projecting their mental illness into the world and others, which is why they come to such retarded self-defeating conclusions.

>>16933531
>Projecting this much

>>16933540
Do you really think the twitter persona of someone accurately reflects their IRL situation, the only way you would assume this is if your only form of interaction with different beliefs is through social media like twitter

>"I must engender multiple copies of myself so that they may take part in this existence which we call reality"

>>16933569
>Do you really think the twitter persona of someone accurately reflects their IRL situation
What are you even trying to say? When someone say they hate white on twittter, don't you think they feel the same in real lfie?
When someone say they are pro immigration on twitter, do you think they vote far right in real life? Normal people express their real views on social media, perhaps schizo like you don't.
But you can get a pretty good picture of the ideologies/political orientation of someone if they are active on twitter

>>16933574
Imagine being sterilized by decades of propaganda and having the nerve to call natalists npcs

>>16933583
I'm the opposite of sterilized, friend. Besides how do you even get sterilized by propaganda? Like, is that even a thing?

>>16933576
Twitter users barely represent america lmao much less the rest of the world

Most normies use instagram, tiktok, facebook etc. Twitter is for more politically inclined users

>>16933603
>Besides how do you even get sterilized by propaganda
By getting convinced you don't want kids for environmental reasons, or because they are too much responsability and you just want to have "fun" while your entire breed goes extinct, or more rarely, because you are white and don't want to perpetuate "oppression" (which is obviously not exerted by the average white worker).

You can even go as far as getting medically sterilized on your own volition to achieve that goal.

Mass control is not exerted by a violent fascist government anymore, but by information.

>>16933624
I see what you mean. But you're wrong to equate being sterile with being celibate. A person who decides not to have kids can still be very much virile and able to have kids.

>>16933515
Not if its accurate which it is

>>16933637
I never talked about being celibate, I talked about absorbing enough propaganda to convince yourself that you do not want kids, ever.
If you change your mind, good for you, but if you don't, you practically sterilized yourself ideologically, you're a genetic deadend, there isn't any other way to put it.

>>16933624
Kids are a responsibility, and will you still be a responsible parent if your kids become a fag, whore or tranny? Can you still be their parents if their choices in adulthood differ from yours?

Being more abusive won't change this fact unless you decide to isolate yourself into some far flung part of the world, and even then your kids might resist you further and leave you in the dirt

>>16933641
How is the truth value of an ad hom in any way related to an argument separate from the person making it?

Why are you even on /lit/ lmao, it's clear you haven't read anything worthwhile if your arguments are of the same kind an amoebae would make

>>16933624
>while your entire breed goes extinct
I wonder who told you to care about this. If you’re going to call any reason someone won’t procreate “propaganda”, isn’t this the same thing?

>>16933657
>Why are antinatalist almost always either hardcore leftists, or straight up degenerates?

that's the question posted by the OP, he's asking why x, x is valid, it isn't an ad hom

The absolute state of /lit/
Half the posters defending a shitty ad hominem argument just because they really hate leftists

>>16933649
I think that if you raise your children right, and with enough love you won't see this kind of stuff happen, or at least it's unlikely.
In my experience, most of the time whores/trannies come from disfunctionnal families, either their parents were complete degenerates/leftists, or their parents were decent but put way too much pressure on their kids and they snapped in opposition to their authority.
As for fags, I think people are born this way, but it's somewhat rare

>>16933667
>Why are antinatalist almost always either hardcore leftists, or straight up degenerates?

objective facvt

>The only people I know who want 4+ kids are what most people here would call "based".
objective fact

>I've never seen a pro immigration activist or a feminist telling me they want plenty of children.
objective fact

>Has it got something to do with self-hate?
question

conclusion: not an ad hom

>>16933663
>I wonder who told you to care about this
Protection of the tribe is a survival mechanism, it is innate

>>16933672
you're delusional. go outside

>>16933672
But it doesn't address the antinatalist argument in any way.
A philosophical argument is independent of the person making it, unless it hinges on some essential characteristic of the person (ie, the say "dude trust me, I know this shit") in which case its a dubious argument to begin with.

>>16933670
Bro half of these leftists come from families like yours that think their way is the right way to raise kids right lmao

There is no way for you to control your kids away from modernity outside of literally living in the countryside or far from habitation, and even that is quite the bet if they don't eventually come to desire city life

>>16933672
>Why are antinatalist almost always either hardcore leftists, or straight up degenerates?
supposition without backing

>The only people I know who want 4+ kids are what most people here would call "based".
anecdote

>I've never seen a pro immigration activist or a feminist telling me they want plenty of children.
anecdote

Besides, OP is obviously critiquing the essence of Antinatalism on the basis of the supposed people supporting it, which is per definition an ad hom.

>>16933677
>A philosophical argument is independent of the person making it
Not if the philosophical opinion is predominantly held by a certain population, the question asked is very relevant in my opinion

>>16933681
Ok, you're a dimwit.

>>16933679
So you're basically giving up?

>>16933672
You’d actually have to go outside once to prove this. You haven’t experienced any of this in reality, I’m sure of that.

>>16933681
you obviously don't know what a philosophical argument even is. Learn some formal logic

>>16933684
>Says the guy incapable of providing a refutal

>>16933692
It won't matter. If you're at the point where you are perfectly content with the most basic and well-known examples fallacious reasoning then what is there to say to you?

>>16933674
Fair enough;
it still doesn’t explain why any idea that goes against this should immediately be written off as propaganda or mental illness.

>>16933692

>>16933684
He's right though, you're missing the point of the thread.
The OP observed that anti-natalism was mostly adopted by people who also tend to show signs of guilt/self-hate and asked how it could be related.
You're not addressing the question at all, which shows a lack of reading comprehension

>>16933708
OP is obviously relating it to the Antinatalist argument. I reckon your reading comprehension ain't that great.

my god \lit\

these threads explode every time, without fail. Please go outside and talk to real people.

>>16933708
He doesn't have a basis for these beliefs. It's just the feel he gets from being on the internet, which will select for a very particular kind of person who accepts the antinatalist arguments.
And the whole thing is an implied ad hominem. Very obvious.

>>16933685
I'd only try I knew I could accept the totality of what my child could be

Maybe if my future wife and I agreed on embryo selection to spare my children as much as possible from having to deal with risks like autism etc. But even then my kids would most likely be different people from me or my wife, with some vague similarities outside of genetic factors

I'm effectively anti-natalist since I really doubt such women exist or are even in my class

Is there a single actually valid anti natalist argument or is it all mincing that people who don't like your views aren't treating you fairly or nicely enough. This is fucking pathetic

>>16933724
Why don't the read the book in the OP and find out?

>>16933724
try reading some actual literature on the subject instead of trying to find reasonable philosophical discussion on fucking 4chan

>>16933714
You're not good at this are you?
>OP observes anti-natalism is adopted by population X
>Population X predominantly holds guilt/self-hate inducing views
>Ask if the adoption of anti-natalism as a core belief could be related to self hate
So far you've said nothing to adress this, other than discussing semantics and name-calling people.

>>16933523
sure thing buddy

>>16933732
It's a dimwit observation unfit for this board. Its pollution.

>>16933737
>A dimwit observation
That took 4 posts for you to grasp, maybe you should stop calling people dimwits and take a look at yourself

>>16933732
Ah yes Schopenhauer the famous leftist

>>16933758
>Schopenhauer
What religion was he?

>>16933728
>>16933729
So, no then. Interesting.

>>16933773
Didn't put that in your OP retard

>>16933777
Nah, the arguments are In the book, but clearly from your side there is no argument for natalism

>>16933777
you don't seem very eager to discover and evaluate other points of view.

And no being spoonfed simplifications of relevant books by 4channers won't do it

>>16933786
Why keep posting when you can't provide a single argument or defense in any way whatsoever?

>>16933799
Yet here you are defending natalism without arguments

>>16933512
if nothing matters, why oppose natalism? who cares what other faggots do, if they wanna have children, let them, you're not gonna suffer because of it, their children are. stop being whiny shits. Benetar is a total hack, I can't believe he's taken somewhat seriously.

>>16933672
This was debunked sweaty

>>16933718
Would you like him to provide some meta-analysis and randomized studies to support his observations. It’s a bit crazy you don’t even see how you’re forcing him into a paradigm he clearly isn’t aligned with by implying that in the first place.

Anyway, this is a /lit/ board not a “you can’t discuss anything without peer-reviewed evidence board”. Even if only anecdotal, I and many others think what he said is sound so please get off the “ad hom” hill already.

>>16933523
you have two slaves who affirm your world view for food. they are already leftists.

>>16933666
Actually anyone who posts "why %statement%?" constructs must be gassed. in essence it is clown demanding performance, entertainment, loosh, for free.

>>16934037
Have you ever considered the possibility that both natalism and antinatalism can be wildly inaccurate, since reality isn’t black and white, and therefore some people would make good parents, while others wouldn’t?

Antinatalism does come from mental illness. I admit this as an antinatalist. I think that's part of the point, really. We have such a strong biological impetus to procreate, that there really has to be something wrong with you in order for you to even question it, much less consciously reject it. But that doesn't make it wrong. Functioning in accord with the biological imperative is not necessarily good, no matter how much our body and mind urge us to do it.

>>16934205
Antinatalism has nothing to do with whether someone is a good parent.

>>16933512
Antinatalism is a self-solving problem. God bless evolution.

>>16934273
Okay then, in which case is antinatalism totally inaccurate? When reality is nothing but sunshine, rainbows and eating candy all day?

when you die it won't matter how many kids you had

>>16934285
It's pointless to argue about it. For example your post is tacitly endorsing human suffering, I assume to an infinite degree. There's nothing that won't be excused if it supports life.

>>16933574
>if I make half copies of myself then I fulfilled the purpose of life
>BEEP BEEP self destruction in 5... 4... 3...

>all life is suffering
Incorrect. Life as a White man is pretty great. Knowing that the prosperity I now enjoy was built on the suffering of black/brown "people" fills me with a happiness I can barely describe.

>>16934314
Do you know your inability to find even a single case in which it’s wrong makes it no different than a dogma?

>>16933583
>propaganda
>99.9% of the world isn't even aware of the position

>>16934334
you are not great at anything anymore
you just live in the shadows of long gone extinct great people

>still not a single argument supporting antinatalism
Sterile dead end bros...

>>16934356
>you just live in the shadows of long gone extinct great people
And you will never know how good it feels. I can do literally nothing with my life, I can be the biggest failure there is, and I will still ALWAYS be superior to non-Whites. I'm not kidding about this either.

>>16934335
It would be wrong if life did not include suffering, which you have caricatured because you support suffering. Like I said there's no point arguing.

>>16934418
>It would be wrong if life did not include suffering
And you don’t see how utterly unrealistic this is? You don’t see how, if there were no suffering, by default that would also make happiness meaningless?

Also, nice armchair psychology

>>16934430
>And you don’t see how utterly unrealistic this is?
Of course it's unrealistic. Life without suffering is impossible. The solution is for there to be no life.
>You don’t see how, if there were no suffering, by default that would also make happiness meaningless?
Happiness can be meaningless, that's fine. I don't have any interest in justifying life, so I don't need to justify happiness.

>>16934441
>Life without suffering is impossible.
Suffering is good.

>>16934468
Okay.

>>16934479
If no pain was produced you wouldn't know to take your hand out of the fire. So it is with suffering.

>>16934492
I'd rather not be born and then I would not experience having my hand in a fire.

>>16934512
Just don't put your hand in the fire retard.

>>16934523
Life without suffering is impossible. I believe we went over this already.

>>16934523
The just world fallacy is seeping in to your posts as well now. How do you know that someone's hand being in a fire is their fault? Someone can quite easily force someone else's hand into a fire and hold it there as long as they'd like.

>>16933515
Chad Hominem, and thus totally accurate.

>>16933512
the ultimate question is:
why be strong?
why continue being strong after people you loved and you thought were are at your side abandon you?
why try at all costs when things like this can happen and you have no power over it?
what is the meaning of the struggle if this is the final result?
loss of meaningful things is an earliest and truest taste of death. because in life we find ourselves with a pile of dust over everything we have built, expending energy, resources and life force.
we try to fight chance over and over but in the end we encounter the ultimate laugh of god.
why have attachments, desires, hopes?
everything to enjoy what we have for a small time and then see it crumble to nothing.
we continue to struggle to create this state of fleeting and agony-ridden happiness, to make it last as long as we can; but without any guaranteed result. the sources of happiness (lovers, dreams, achievements) can be destroyed outside of our control, either by them leaving or wills greater than our own. and yet we continue to stand and renew our faith in a "better" future.
god is a mediocre screenwriter. life is ridden with injustice, shit, insults and tackles of all sorts. everyone says: move on. you have to accept it and move on. but we cling to the things that gave us joy, our minds get attached and does everything in order to restore it. but those sources are gone, and our attempts to have it back are just cause of more sadness and remaining stuck. the only way to "move on" is realizing that it's gone, and that you can be only in the present and the rest of your life, by not feeding the attachment.

being hopeful and strong again in the face of loss and tragedy is ultimately irrational. It's a faith in something indefinite of the future.. we do it out of egoism, selfishness and renewed will.

>>16934532
>Someone can quite easily force someone else's hand into a fire and hold it there as long as they'd like.
I've seen a video of this. Cartel stuff, except it was his face they slowly burned off not his hand.

Still, it was easily preventable on his part, just don't fuck around with cartels.

.... So let's say his whole ordeal from the time of his capture to his death lasted a week. Well there's 52 weeks in a year, and assuming he lived to 25 that means he lived for 1300 weeks with just 1 week of that being pure unimaginable pain and suffering (already an overstatement, they won't have tortured him for that long). That still leaves 1299 weeks of normal existence.

>>16934584
I would rather not be born.

>>16933624
>accuses someone else of getting duped by propaganda
>believes in white genocide through sterilization

why is the right so blind to irony

>>16933523
They aren't your biological kids though, despite that your wife told you

Reproduction is a death-cope -- the biggest such criminals of this are those who use justification of lineage as some hilarious form of immortality. It's not really good or bad, but it's completely unimpressive.

>>16934593
And I would rather be born?

>>16934643
Would you? Is this >>16934584 a good bargain in your view? 1 week is of course not that impressive, as there are people who have undergone much more prolonged torturous deaths.

>>16934597
why are you?

>>16934635
Reproduction is a side-effect of cooming.

>>16934649
No it's not a good deal for me. Good news is there are steps I can take, like not joining a cartel(!) which reduce my chances of such an end.
>as there are people who have undergone much more prolonged torturous deaths
Yes but this is unlikely. Does the thought of getting hit by a car stop you from leaving your house?

Also not all suffering is equal. The suffering that happens to me, my family and my in-group is meaningful. The suffering that happens to nigs in Africa is meaningless.

>>16933512
They hate their existence. That is antinatalist means.

>>16934252
what if it comes from the realization that we are not our body or our mind? then antinatalism seems legit.

>>16934468
t. Jocko

>>16934468
Then why do you constantly avoid it?

>>16933515
The notion of ad hominem as a fallacy is transparently the result of malformed, failed people wanting their beliefs (the ones that led to their malformation and failure) to be taken seriously by the beautiful, successful, and profound.
A filthy vessel will not pour out clean water.

>>16934635
Only mental deformity could produce this line of thinking.

>>16934401
retarded "leftist" detected. Stop reading Diangelo, read Racecraft instead.

>>16935277
says the loser from 4chinz

>>16933574
>I must prevent others from practicing their ability to perpetuate the species because my own existence has heretofore been bad and so I project this experience onto others

>>16935930
Says the loser on 4chinz.

>>16933512
My fiancee (and soon to be wife) is a working medical doctor and I'm an engineer. We live in germany, make good money and wish to have offspring. At least 2 kids and maximum 3-4 would be great. We can't wait till we are around 34 years old, to raise a family somewhere in the more rural parts of bavaria.

You can of course try to refute this wish, but I doubt that you will find anything of value, to speak against it. To live close to nature, with a good partner by your side and a couple of children must be one of the divine blessings

>>16934314
>anti-natalists want to prevent all pain, caring little for the pleasure this may cause
>natalists want to create maximum pleasure, caring little for the pain this may cause
I would say only that pain that is needed to create such a state of "maximum pleasure" is excused; "infinite pain" cannot exist nor would it be needed.

>>16934348
>environmentalism
>people gradually not having kids because it's too time-consuming, expensive, and they want to do other things and would rather raise pets
It's quiet, but it's still there. This anti-natalism is more of a pessimistic, nihilistic one.

>>16934356
Why does this matter? Especially if you can be great relative to those around you, or it you can reject the idea that "you are not great at anything anymore" (which can be overcome by being great, which is not suddenly impossible for us to do just because of the time we're in).

>>16934441
Few idiots can desire nonexistence; you cannot even experience nonexistence and the "relief from pain" you think it brings, so it is utterly meaningless. Rather than solving problems, you just throw the baby out with the bathwater- an easy thing to do if your philosophy only asks you to "stop reproducing." And yet these anti-natalists never care about preventing the pain in their life or the pain they cause to others.

>life without suffering is impossible.
This doesn't need a material solution; I choose God

>>16934528
Then remove your ability to feel pain.

>>16934635
Oversimplification, the rest is a nonargument

>>16934658
Whorish sex is; responsible reproduction is not

>>16934719
From our limited point of view

>>16936125
>you cannot even experience nonexistence and the "relief from pain" you think it brings
Semantics. I don't care about experiencing nonexistence. Nonexistence means there is no experience. I want nothingness, with no experience of it.

>>16936069
All they have left is doomsaying. "Your roastie wife will leave you, lol." "Your kids will become trannies, lol." These are all fables they tell themselves to make themselves feel better about their dead end existence, while it is possible that you will experience more joy and less dysfunction than they, the childless and possibly unmarried, will.

"Anti-natalists" care so much about preventing pain; they should go out and work at a soup kitchen, something they can exert an influence on. They can never change people's minds on the internet, especially not with such piss-poor arguments (and yet they keep telling you to "read this book" or "read that book;" but it they themselves had read these books, surely their arguments would be better). Instead, they waste their time causing more needless pain to themselves and others, never changing anything, and only not doing something that isn't difficult in the first place (abstain from sex, or get a vasectomy and have sex).

Reasons for reproduction are not all selfish or egoistic; you cannot say that you "cannot be concerned for the wellbeing or pleasure of a nonexistent entity." You can, because it is a potential being, just as anti-natalists are concerned with preventing such a being's potential suffering.

>>16936143
Why do you want nothingness? Why do you not "attain" nothingness right now, seeing as it is so easy to do so? Why should you care about the sufferings of your loved ones if you were to die, if you can only be concerned about them here, in existence? There is no use in talking about "I would rather have" or "rather not have;" most often, your desires are idiotic. You don't want nothingness, you want something, but you are either too lethargic/apathetic to get it, or you think nothing lasts or is worth it. Then go out and find that worthy, everlasting thing.

And spare me the poeticisms and BS, like "man, I just want to be out of this twisted rollercoaster of an existence as a slave to biology etcetera..." You are not as much of a slave as you think.

>>16933512
So I don't care much for this guy, and haven't read his book.
I only heard his arguments in a discussion with Harris.

His claim, for what I can remember, is that future suffering can be calculated, but future positive experiences can not be.
He did not explain this well at all, or I'm just retarded, but Harris certainly didn't get it either.
Does anyone ITT understand where he's coming from?

>>16936236
If future positive experiences can't be expected, then they are all the stronger. If future negative experiences can be expected (you will die, your parents will die, you will have lower T, etcetera), then not only is their effect diminished, but you can also prepare yourself for them. And I reject the premise that it would be better for these things to never have happened in the first place, which is quite subjective

>>16936257
I still don't understand why you can't see it from a statistical point of view - You're by random chance going to have positive experiences, so you can indeed expect them to happen.

Or are we in a philosophical thought experiment?

>>16936069
Here's hoping there's no global economic collapse in the next 40 years, or they don't get incurably ill, or don't share your enthusiasm for life and become depressed. Gambling with someone else's life is never wrong, especially when you can bury the consequences, the dead don't speak, people don't kill themselves.

>>16936367
The point is that the positive experiences are more unexpected than the negative ones. That's what I guess Benatar is arguing about. Either way, I think the argument is stupid, and matters are more circumstantial; I was just arguing against his position that positive experiences are generally incalculable because they are not guaranteed

>>16936399
The same could be said for your life, and yet you continue to gamble with it

>>16936451
Not for long.

>>16934635
>t. 19 y/o who just read Becker

>>16933531
Seems like you got a bone to pick with your parents or something

>>16936399
Have you never spoken to people in rough straits before? People can be happy in any situation, the happiest people on earth are poor Mexicans with 8 kids in shacks.

>>16936492
I'm glad that the people in your example are happy.

>>16933512
If you take a pessimistic view of life, it means that you see suffering outweighing pleasure everywhere you look. Naturally then you tend towards a permissiveness regarding pleasures and a distaste for imposed suffering that turns you hedonic and socialistic.

Whats the point of these threads? I'm a committed antinatalist, and I can assure you 100% that these threads are the lowest quality discussions on antinatalism on the entire internet, by far.

Even the cesspool that is r/antinatalism has better quality discussion than here. Its really quite pathetic, considering that this is supposed to be the 'intellectual 4chan board.

There is suffering in life
Nothing is deprived by not being born
We should prevent suffering
Therefore don't procreate

>>16937080
u buttmad that you didnt get a reply or something? here ya go

>>16937080
It's an echo chamber.

Main issue with natalists is that they don't consider children as people, workers. Children grow into adults, but this fact absolutely missing from their consciousness. A cute toy will grow in a world with nothing new to discover, demand, economy collapse. You think covid hoax and lockdown is just elites playing fools? They are very serious about their plans, and they know well what they are doing. Covid and masks mean that you, people, are a decease, a virus, cancer of this planet. Google behavioral sink, this is result of mindless natalism, without natural predators. Zoomers in 10 20 years will become most depressed addicted to drugs generation.

>>16937080
>I'm a committed antinatalist
So which of the following are you?
1. Jew
2. Woman
3. Faggot
4. Non-White

>>16933512

Seems like your entire umwelt was informed purely by this site.
We should honestly begin vivissecting a couple of folks like you in order to understand pure autism.

>>16937272
A nerve has been touched.

I’m on the right and I’m not having kids. I mean I wish we didn’t have ridiculous immigration and shit but I’m not going to waste my life bitching. It’s really just that we have a near infinite capacity for suffering and it just so happens that anyone genetically similar to me tends to suffer a lot.