[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 28 KB, 640x360, Mike-Stoklasa-640x360.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13448171 No.13448171[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>friend plans on having children
Can any anti-natalist anons on this board recommend some good literature to hand him?

>> No.13448186

Anti-natalism is delusional utilitarianism that fails against utilitarian logic, and utilitarianism is retarded.

>> No.13448225

>>13448186
To explain.
You can never in one life time convince the world to stop reproducing.
So, Anti-natalists, in order to make sure their "wisdom" survives themselves, have to get a lot of children (since children is the most sustainable way of passing on ideology). Being an Anti-natalist is likely also heritable, thus if all Anti-natalists stopped having children Anti-natalists would die out and you following your own ethics doom the rest of the world to Natalism; we again end up with Anti-natalists being forced to reproduce several kids to increase the odds of your children being Anti-natalist themselves, but also for at least one of them to see that they need to personally reproduce so that their own children can teach anti-natalism like you and your children (and their children, and their children). You van't leave it to fate that Anti-natalism movement will survive your death.

>> No.13448238

>have friend
>he has a fulfilling life with his wife
>he wants kids
>be anti natalist
>he shouldn’t have kids
>go on lit
>ask people who are sparter than me what my friend should read so my desires are met
What a faggot

>> No.13448239

>>13448225
But of course, it might be difficult to convince others to not have children while you have several.

>> No.13448242

>>13448171
>I want less of my friend in this world
Sounds like he's your enemy.

>> No.13448268

Anti-natalism is the most retarded """""""philosophy""""""" ever conceived.

>> No.13448275
File: 125 KB, 1200x754, 1562676346591.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13448275

>>13448171
>having friends

>> No.13448280

>>13448268
Not an argument.

>> No.13448298
File: 1.34 MB, 2532x1366, antinatalism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13448298

Hit him with this baby.

>> No.13448300

>>13448171
stop being gay

>> No.13448304

>>13448280
Neither is anti-natalism. It's just a gay way of being a misanthrope.

>> No.13448337

Please dont turn your friend into a cool wine aunt or whatever its male equivalent is

>> No.13448351

>>13448280
Okay Stefan. Anti-natalism revolves around the idea that non-existence is preferable to existence, because even though they're nihilistic enough to deny that positive meaning can make life worth the effort, they're just sensible enough to conclude that negative meaning (i.e. suffering) can't be escaped.

This is perhaps partially true, in the sense that positive meaning certainly doesn't have a habit of falling into our laps, much unlike suffering, which is intimately tied to the fundamental conditions of existence. Yet their denial of positive meaning runs so deep that they commonly misconceptualize the opposite of pain as pleasure: the opposite of negative meaning is seen as fleeting, superficial comfort. The idea that what makes life worth living can't be measured in a "rational" pleasure versus pain analysis doesn't seem to enter their minds.

But here's the real kicker: if it's really the case that life isn't worth living, then why haven't they killed themselves? Anti-natalists rarely ever end their own lives, in spite of their central claim that life is an unwarranted imposition that isn't worth the trouble. Instead, they try to convince other people not to procreate, and then have the goddamn balls to pretend what they're doing is moral and reasonable. It really is the pinnacle of miserable faggotry.

>> No.13448363

>>13448171
You sound like a fucking shitty friend

>> No.13448387

>>13448171
Stop having friends and have sex.

>> No.13448400
File: 41 KB, 530x292, eva26.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13448400

Go watch episode 25 and 26 of NGE

>> No.13448492

>>13448275
How do I get a gf like this?

>> No.13448517

>>13448492
So you want to live in a dirty Japanese apartment with a taciturn minor as your gf?

>> No.13448521

>>13448171
>I’m so smart I realize that reproducing is dumb
i really understand anti-natials but you do realize that dumb people will make 11 kids each and over run the world with more misery while you’re smug in a coffin

>> No.13448525

>>13448517
yes except without the minor part

>> No.13448535

>>13448280
not a brain cell

>> No.13448539

>>13448525
Coward

>> No.13448544

>>13448539
retarded nigger

>> No.13448550

>>13448171
that's a good way to lose a friend and isolate yourself even more than you already are
but whatever, go for it

>> No.13448562

>>13448171
Just fucking stop already.
Anti-natialism is braindead utilitarianism based on obvious falsehoods, like "suffering is bad" or "giving birth leads to a net negative in happiness".
None of the could explain to me what exactly is so bad about living, a hundred times I heard "But what about muh kids in Africa", but not once a serious argument why having a children in the west would lead to a net decrease in happiness on the weighted average.

>> No.13448579

>>13448562
Children didn't consent to be born. It's a net bad thing

>> No.13448590

>>13448579
>Children didn't consent to be born.
And?
They also didn't consent if their parents are opening a savings book for them and putting money on that.
Being a child means that your parents should consent on your behalf, if you are an adult and decide life wasn't so good, kill yourself.

>It's a net bad thing
WHY?

>> No.13448598

>>13448351
>negative meaning (i.e. suffering)
That's fucking wrong.
Suffering, in moderation, is a positive force in the lives of most people, getting up, going to the gym, having close personal relationships ALL causes suffering.
And YET the hypocrites of anti-natalists still do it, STILL they don't lie in their beds waiting for death.

>> No.13448734

>>13448238
/thread

>> No.13448780

>>13448579
You only get to decide that for yourself, bucko. I for one quite like being alive and would much prefer it to not being alive, despite the lack of consent on my part and the fact that it sometimes does suck quite a lot.

This is yet another problem with anti-natalism: behind the veneer of philantropy for trying to eradicate suffering through non-existence is actually the message to others that their lives are worthless, regardless of how those people themselves feel about their existence. How's that for a fucked up philosophy?

If you tell an anti-natalist that you think your life to be worthwhile, they will have to try and persuade you that you're wrong if they're consistent, because the denial of meaning is axiomatic to their entire philosophy. They might not try to impose their will on others, but they will secretly believe that this person would have been better off never having existed, regardless of how much they say they enjoy their lives. If you follow anti-natalist logic through to its ultimate conclusion, murdering the entire world in their sleep is a noble act of mercy as long as you do it painlessly.

>> No.13448838

>>13448298
>if you were at the theatre next to me I would get up and leave faggot
lol

>> No.13448892

>>13448780

This is what philosophy is you dummy
If you value your own feelings so much over logical discourse why even bother with philosophy? Philosophy is not about confirming biases and as such must naturally include a strong rhetorical component

>> No.13448921

>>13448171
Rape his kid.

>> No.13448922

>>13448892
I do in fact value my own feelings about being alive over logical discourse, if that discourse is trying to persuade me that I essentially would be better off dead, and I have a problem with anyone trying to argue against the validity of those feelings. But if you'd rather reason yourself out of being content with life, go right ahead.

>> No.13448946

>>13448892
>If you value your own feelings so much over logical discourse why even bother with philosophy?
If you value logical discourse so much over your own feelings, why even bother with philosophy?

>> No.13448958

>>13448922

Well I'm sorry to say this anon but I think you might be a full blown normie with a view like that

>> No.13448969
File: 8 KB, 636x773, bc3.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13448969

>life is fun bro just get a job and hit the club

>> No.13449012

>>13448958
Not really, but I don't see the point in valuing logical discourse over subjective experience. Feelings matter to me, certainly when we're talking about the question of whether or not life is worth living. Even the fundamental arguments of anti-natalism revolve around the supposed negativity of subjective experience. IMO this is a subject in which supposedly logical discourse can't really be seperated from how we feel about the human condition.

>> No.13449024

>>13448969
There's no reason to reject fun, but clubs are boring.
Boredom is a form of escapism, at least how I see it. Haven't had boredom since; my mind seeks better ways to avoid the unavoidable.

>> No.13449065

>>13448337
Why have kids when you could buy a Nintendo switch????

>> No.13449108
File: 124 KB, 836x569, 89a3f023e2465b5f43cabfadc3d01117c123ab4e51bbaee5532f8298d7c910cd.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13449108

>>13449065
>Japanese product evil
There is a flaw in the American soul.

>> No.13449115

>>13448969
you have never talked to anyone ever

>> No.13449259

>>13448298
>father leaves before birth again
>baby born black (not shocking)
anon is savage, sister couldnt handle it

>> No.13449272

>>13448171
Your sad pathetic existence would be enough of a proof

>> No.13449319

>>13448579
Imagine caring about consent when pertaining to obviously beneficial things

>> No.13449429

>>13448298
>baby crushed by uncle
>anon is giving this to his sister
Jesus Christ he indirectly told his sister he would kill her baby himself

>> No.13449464
File: 1.43 MB, 2086x1423, Eiko Hosoe “Kamaitachi” #31, taken in 1968.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13449464

humankinds carnal desire to reproduce really disgusts me so much, i cant even put it into words properly. its disgusting.

>> No.13449518

I won’t tell anyone else to have or not to have children, but I don’t see any reason for me to reproduce, I simply don’t get it. I sometimes get the urge to do it, but when I start to think about it I just don’t understand it. I can’t find a single reason for why I should want to create a conscious being. If he or she would be anything like me they will probably won’t even enjoy their existence 95% of the time.
My gf really wants to have children,so this relationship is probably not going to last forever either.

>> No.13449535

>>13449319
>Taking the neutral state of nonexistence and turning it into the suffering state of existence
>"Obviously beneficial"

>> No.13449637

>>13448351
is this the most dictionary-perfect example of a fallacy by hypocrisy ever posted on /lit/? think it is

>> No.13449655
File: 88 KB, 994x876, David.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13449655

Always so... effective. Sly bait, squirming bait, vigorous and real like a living thing: the perfect facsimile. Only too easy to bite right into.

>> No.13449671

anti natalists that kill themselves

>> No.13449692

>>13448351
>It would be a sign of callowness to bemoan the fact that pessimistic writers do not rate and may be reprehended in both good conscience and
good company. Some critics of the pessimist often think they have his back to the wall when they blithely jeer, “If that is how this fellow feels,
he should either kill himself or be decried as a hypocrite.” That the pessimist should kill himself in order to live up to his ideas may be
counterattacked as betraying such a crass intellect that it does not deserve a response. Yet it is not much of a chore to produce one. Simply
because someone has reached the conclusion that the amount of suffering in this world is enough that anyone would be better off never
having been born does not mean that by force of logic or sincerity he must kill himself. It only means he has concluded that the amount of
suffering in this world is enough that anyone would be better off never having been born. Others may disagree on this point as it pleases them, but they must accept that if they believe themselves to have a stronger case than the pessimist, then they are mistaken."
Thomas Ligotti, "The Conspiracy Against the Human Race"

>> No.13449714

>>13449637
It is indeed an appeal to hypocrisy. That doesn't make it an invalid argument, especially when a central flaw of this philosophy is that it's in fact hypocritical.

Anti-natalism is very explicit when it comes to its preference for non-existence. Is it then unreasonable to ask why anti-natalists choose to exist regardless of this conviction? I'm saying that if they're not willing to put their money where their mouth is by ending their existence, they at least ought to explain the reasons they used to justify the continuation of their supposedly unbearable existence, lest they make the entire belief system look like a joke that they don't actually believe in.

>> No.13449813

>>13449714
do you not know what validity is? the tu quoque fallacy is by defintion invalid and unsound - all fallacies are

>> No.13449847
File: 59 KB, 299x450, 9780143133148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13449847

>> No.13449860

Anti-natalists are spergy plebs who bought into the 90s slacker mindset and redditor bullshit about how horrible it is to bring a life into [Bush's/Trump's/etc's] America and how there's too many people so europeans must stop having kids but we can't do anything about all aid going to africa because that's somehow sacrosanct.

Seriously kill yourselves you absolute wastes of space.

>> No.13449958

>>13449714
if they never existed they wouldn't have to face suicide (which I assume you realize is a pretty negative act associated with a lot of suffering) as their only way out of a bad situation, a situation they never asked to be in, in the first place. not having children prevents others from finding themselves in that very situation.

>> No.13450027
File: 377 KB, 1567x2479, 81BYJ4ypGcL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13450027

Sheesh, talk about sour grapes. Give him this one, bucket crab bitch.

>> No.13450039
File: 1.29 MB, 2400x3840, Cover 1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13450039

>> No.13450043

>>13448171
Antinatalism only applies to the ugly and stupid and malformed. If your friend and his mate are attractive and successful they should have lots of kids.

>> No.13450194

>>13449813
I'll try to make it sound like less of an accusation: when it comes to what is essentially a belief system that makes radical assertions about life and meaning, the incongruence between the beliefs of its adherents and their actions is IMO something to be considered. In this particular case, the pointed out hypocrisy is an indication that anti-natalists do in fact have a reason to continue living in spite of their claims, which would contradict some of their central axioms. It could very well be a perfectly understandable reason, such as the fear of death... nevertheless, that's still a reason that we might want to examine and consider in light of this philosophy (e.g. is the fear of death something we can and perhaps should overcome?). So with this in mind, the question why anti-natalists haven't killed themselves yet is actually quite reasonable, I think, even if it may seem petty.

>> No.13450205

>>13448171
better to have never been and maybe some Schopenhauer

>> No.13450207

>>13449958
That doesn't make sense to me.
First of all, there isn't much use in speculating about what if we never existed, because we do. Moreover, I'm basically saying that we don't have to exist if we really disagree with life's conditions: unpleasant as the measures may be, we do have agency over our existence to this extent.
I really don't mean to be a dick, but if life is so terrible then surely the temporary suffering that comes with suicide would be preferable to the prolonged dread of existence? Of course this isn't a decision to take lightly, but if we reduce our reasons to live to such a cost-benefit analysis then someone who doesn't believe that any form of meaning or pleasure can balance out the inherent suffering of being will surely decide that suicide is the lesser of two evils? If not, then why would we want to spare our potential offspring the same discomfort that we apparently are able to endure ourselves?

>> No.13450218

BTW I'm really not advocating that any anti-natalists actually kill themselves, but I really find it a deplorable philosophy that can only be truly embraced by a damaged, cynical mind. Not to go full Nietzsche here, but you faggots are competing with incels for being the absolute pinnacle of life-deniers. Honestly, it just seems like a coping mechanism, a sort of rationalization of existential depression... but just because YOU can't find a reason to live doesn't give you the right to tell others that their lives are not worth living. If I say that my life is worth living to me, then it is. You ought to respect that, because A) it's my life and B) the experience of life is inherently subjective so you have no argument C) even if I'm delusional, I still have the right to prefer the delusion over nothingness. FFS I don't even believe in objective reality anyway. Your problems with existence perhaps aren't unique in that there have been many people facing the same existential problems before you – I'm no stranger to existential crises myself – but that doesn't mean you get to universalize your shitty misanthropic outlook by claiming that existence in itself is objectionable. YOUR existence is. There's a difference. I sincerely hope you find a reason to live. Much love and a big bro hug. Now go fuck yourselves.

>> No.13450228
File: 45 KB, 1143x485, 5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13450228

I don't want anyone who would actually fall for the ideology to be alive, so I'd say actively encourage it. In fact, I have even pretended to be an anti-natalist among white liberals before because I so dearly desire the extinction of their left-leaning genes that I am willing to do anything to encourage it.

What is it Napoleon said, never interrupt your enemy when he is making a mistake? This is the same thing we did with Roe vs Wade. You crunch those abortion numbers, baby, it's no wonder Gen Z is the most right-wing one since before WWII. All the liberal kids are dead or were never born.

Anti-Natalism is like a mind-virus, we should, SHOULD encourage it to kill off everyone who is vulnerable to it.

>> No.13450332

>>13448171
Let your friend have children, you miserable faggot.

>> No.13450338

>>13450194
have you never taken a logic course? the tu quoque fallacy may be intuitively significant when presented in ordinary language but that doesnt change the fact that whether or not antinatalists kill themselves would neither prove or disprove the truth of their argument. if all antinatalists killed themselves would you suddenly concede all your objections?

>> No.13450351

>>13450338
>if all antinatalists killed themselves would you suddenly concede all your objections?
Obviusly not, because that would only really prove that life is not worth living if you're an antinatalist. What I would prefer is an answer to the question: what are your reasons for not having committed suicide?

>> No.13450367

>>13448280
>hey honey, we're having friends over, can you please get rid of your pissbot-
>I DIDN'T ASK TO BE BORN MOM!
Literally angsty teenager tier "philosophy".

>> No.13450369

>>13450207
>First of all, there isn't much use in speculating about what if we never existed, because we do.
The reason we speculate about it is in relation to our potential offspring. Yes we exist and have to deal with it. But they don't.
>why would we want to spare our potential offspring the same discomfort that we apparently are able to endure ourselves?
the issue really is more complex. nature fashions us with various coping mechanisms to endure our suffering. The crux of of the matter also involves reasoning about the value of life. what is really gained from the continued existence of the human race or any life for that matter when there exists no meaning in the universe ?

>> No.13450379

>>13450351
>because that would only really prove that life is not worth living if you're an antinatalist
do you think all arguments are totally structurally isolated from all others? the antinatalist axioms arent uniquely antinatalist otherwise thatd be begging the question
and if you wouldnt concede your objections - then your propping up of whether or not an antinatalist kills himself is illegitimate as a condition to test the truth-value of their conclusions

>> No.13450384

>>13448579
I didn't concent but am very glad my parents did on my behalf. For that reason I'm glad your philosophy is fringe and irrelevant.

>> No.13450386

>>13450379
*means, not condition

>> No.13450397

>>13448171
Antinatalism is a meme ideology. Thomas Ligotti is the poster child for it, and he has numerous mental disorders that prevent him from feeling joy, so he has an excuse for loathing existence. What's your excuse? Basic bitch depression? Mommy and daddy didn't love you enough? NEETdom?

>> No.13450414

>>13450218
You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what anti-natalism is. Even a cursory Wikipedia-tier level of understanding would be an improvement for you.

>> No.13450416

>>13448579
Children don't exist until they're already born/conceived. "Their" consent isn't even a valid concept because "They" don't exist.

>> No.13450452

>>13450218
> but that doesn't mean you get to universalize your shitty misanthropic outlook by claiming that existence in itself is objectionable
we are perhaps the agents of chaos because we recognize that chaos is the force that rules the emptiness of the universe. Life and order is but one, albeit seemingly unlikely, permutation of that chaos. Just as consciousness is, and it is a very unfortunate one for those who find themselves in possession of this abomination that has been called the human tragedy. This framework of chaos that surrounds us an the lack of any meaning to it creates the framework for our suffering because the consciousness sees itself as unique to anything that exists around it and argues "surely there must be a special reason for my existence?" And therein the tragedy. There is none.
You might feel that your life is worth living and you rightly agree that you might be delusional but there are no guarantees that you offspring will reach that same conclusion. There are no guarantees that your offspring will be able to enjoy the comforts that you do in life or be able to mitigate suffering to the same extent that you are able to.

>> No.13450512

>>13450397
what if your kid was the next Thomas Ligotti ?

>> No.13450517

>>13450369
>the issue really is more complex. nature fashions us with various coping mechanisms to endure our suffering. The crux of of the matter also involves reasoning about the value of life. what is really gained from the continued existence of the human race or any life for that matter when there exists no meaning in the universe ?

I think I get where you're coming from, but isn't this quite a presumptuous metaphysical claim? We really can't say with certainty that there exists no meaning in the universe.

Also, whatever might be said about meaning in an intrinsic sense doesn't necessarily translate to perceived meaning, which IME is all that is required to make life worthwhile. I mean, a person is not some abstract representation of the human race; what is to be gained from the continued existence of the human race is really not that important in the context of whether or not OUR lives are worth living. I can only speak for myself, and in my case I think being alive is mostly alright, even if it turns out to be one big delusion. All that business about the universe and the human race is a distraction from what I think it's all about.

Admittedly, life sometimes really sucks and the benefit of not having existed would inarguably be not having to go through the effort of having to make the whole thing worth the struggle, because it does seem obvious that if meaning exists in life, it doesn't magically land in your lap... but then again, if I had the option, I would do it all again. In that sense, I consider life both an imposition as well as a gift.

>> No.13450525

>>13450512
>what if your kid became the greatest living horror author?
I would be proud of him.

>> No.13450585

>>13450517
>We really can't say with certainty that there exists no meaning in the universe.
fair enough, and I'll leave it at that.

>> No.13450588

>>13448171
I'm an Anti-natalist but mostly just because I never understood why people want to have kids. Despite living a comfortable life, I still see suffering as the primary rule of life and I don't know why people want to continue that trend.

If you have a kid, and the kid grows up and grows to hate life because of the inevitable suffering. And the kid asks you why you (as his/her parent) brought him/her to this world. How would you not feel incredible guilt.

Some people tell me that life is a blessing. And honestly, really, I wish I could share that view. But I just don't see it. It just seems like a bunch of tedium mixed in with occasional tragedy and occasional bliss.

>> No.13450630

image creating an entire philosophy field just to not admit you are gay

>> No.13450667

>>13450585
That's probably for the best as that's an endless rabbit hole that seemingly leads nowhere, but I do think that metaphysics is at the core of a lot of the disagreements in this thread, or the entire philosophy even. (spoiler: I'm not a materialist)
But it's cool if we agree to disagree, as long as I get to continue living in a bubble in which my life has meaning. Cheers.

>> No.13451215

>>13448351
> But here's the real kicker: if it's really the case that life isn't worth living, then why haven't they killed themselves?
You haven't read any of the anti-natalist arguments have you? How dumb do you think they are that they haven't thought of or considered such an obvious objection? The answer is that by existing you are handed the weight of existence, ie. you now have a stake in existence. If you never existed this would not be a problem. Quitting a job is a lot different than never getting hired in the first place.

>> No.13451252
File: 32 KB, 588x588, 1555744002058.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13451252

if you don't have kids, corporations and the government will keep allowing 3rd world migrants into the country, who will never integrate and will be continually used as surplus labour to overwhelm and dwarf the native population, drive down wages and living standards

and that will be all your fault

>> No.13451312

>>13451252
appeal to consequences fallacy

>> No.13451425

>>13451312
>dude we're about to be destroyed!
>lol who cares
useless nihilist

>> No.13451432

>>13448171
Just remind him society has like 20 years tops and his kids will die young

>> No.13451461

>>13448171
Let him live his life autismo

>> No.13451537

>>13448298
>birth video leaked to porn site
>humiliating lifetime for baby
Yeah I'm pro antinatalism for the guy who made that spreadsheet. He should be forceably removed from the theatre of life

>> No.13451746

>>13448171
Why are you a jerk that feels he has to intervene in others lives?

>> No.13451751

>>13448517
Could I get two minors for the price of one?
Do they come with gags?

>> No.13451755
File: 46 KB, 300x356, 1554044182571.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13451755

>>13451252
Can't import migrants if they don't exist.

>> No.13451832

>>13451425
don't think i said that anywhere but whatever probabilistic consequences may occur as a result of anti-natalism being practiced would not undermine the truth of the conclusion produced from its axioms

>> No.13451947

If somebody decides to have offspring because he considers life as a positive and creative experience and consequently raises his children to embrace and function in this (sort of Nietzschean exaltation of life), though I don't share this view, I'm fine with that. However, what I feel is that most parents just use their offspring to validate their already mediocre existance, children are merely an ornament to them. Even the sole reason to produce offspring can be just soccial pressure.

>> No.13451957

>>13448171
Can Life Prevail?

>> No.13452137

When will there be anti-natalist missionaries to Africa?

>> No.13452186

>>13449012
Spoken like a true npc.

>> No.13452565

>>13448562
Read Omelas

>> No.13452627

>>13451215
I'm familiar with that argument, but desu it's barely an argument. It's more of a hollow, whiney complaint that rests entirely on a hypothetical.

The weight of existence is something we can either shed, or continue to
bear. It is indeed true that if we never existed, we wouldn't have to make that choice. What's also true is that if my grandma had a V8 engine she would go faster. FFS what kind of idiotic """"argument"""" is that? We do exist, there is something instead of nothing, we're up in this bitch, and evidently it's bearable enough that we're all still here to have this conversation. Moreover, existence also comes with near endless possibilities that non-existence does not offer for obvious reasons. I know anti-natalists reject the idea that this could give our lives enough "meaning" to make it worthwhile, but nevertheless lots of people actually like this whole being alive deal. Anti-natalists clearly don't, sucks to be them, but I'm not cool with them universalizing their own inability or unwillingness to cope with the conditions of existence and projecting that onto people who aren't pathetic misanthropes. Honestly, the more antinatalist arguments I hear the more I'm convinced it's one big LARP for losers who find solace in pretending that they're smart for wishing that they never had been born.

Also, not only is it a bad excuse for an argument; neither is it an actual answer to the question. All you established is that not existing would have been easier than making the choice of whether or not to kill yourself. So why not choose to stop existing now so you're spared any future choices that are harder than not existing by virtue of requiring you actually do something with your life instead of complaining how awful it is on the internet?

>> No.13452917

>Also, not only is it a bad excuse for an argument; neither is it an actual answer to the question. All you established is that not existing would have been easier than making the choice of whether or not to kill yourself.

it's not about how hard the choice is, but about the conclusion of whether you should kill yourself or not.

for example the implied consequences of your death for people you care about could still make you willing to suffer for their sake, even if you wished you never existed.
there is a difference between having your friend kill themselves or never having had a friend, the former could be expected to be much more emotionally painful

>> No.13453237

>>13451746
The only reason I am here is to persuade people to not have children. Otherwise I'd just kill myself right now.

>> No.13453249
File: 95 KB, 550x405, c6lgm1s.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13453249

>>13448171
>(((anti-natalist)))

>> No.13453262

>>13453249
The jew needs the goy to reproduce so he can keep squeezing them for coins

>> No.13453286
File: 46 KB, 651x258, white minority in london.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13453286

>>13451755
>Can't import migrants if they don't exist.
too bad they do