/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.17672136]

*makes /lit/ questions if it is ok to put a child on this world and if suffering has any value at all or worthy*

Sorry, kiddo, nothing personal.

[Anonymous No.17672162]

What an embarrassing mindset.

[Anonymous No.17672180]

>>17672162
Yes for a braindead ape like you.

[Anonymous No.17672182]

>>17672136
David Bentar is still alive, I'll read his book when he practices what he preaches

[Anonymous No.17672196]

>>17672182
>antinatalist should kys

Cope and brainlet argument.

[Anonymous No.17672201]

>>17672136
I use antinatalism to feel better about the fact that no woman wants to be impregnated by my penis.

[Anonymous No.17672205]

>>17672182
So you don't read dead optimists?

[Anonymous No.17672209]

Truly a midwit filter, people can cope with the fact that the dude has a pretty strong argument against natalism, kind of sad, because every times this book is bring to /lit/ the only replies that it gets are very low-tier only like: "muh suffering has meaning ok! why? b-because is ok so! don't question!"

[Anonymous No.17672215]

>>17672182
What a dumb take, jesus, dude, I don't think that you are that bright.

[Anonymous No.17672235]

>>17672201
If you're white, move to a 3rd world county. Or you can use your Green card as an advantage.
Stop being a fucking counter shill faggot.

[Anonymous No.17672266]

>anti-natalists

[Anonymous No.17672275]

>>17672136
>makes /lit/ questions if it is ok to put a child on this world and if suffering has any value at all or worthy
Jesus fucking Christ this sentence is an abomination

[Anonymous No.17672276]

>>17672266
>missing one of the most important argument of consent
Read a book subhuman

[Anonymous No.17672285]

>>17672235
Fuck off goblina, I don’t want your stinking brown pussy

[Anonymous No.17672294]

>>17672182
retard

[Anonymous No.17672296]

>>17672276
But it does pose the question: If life is such a terrible thing, in fact the worst thing, and non-being the best, would their death be a positive or negative development?

[Anonymous No.17672310]

kino book cover, very melancholic somewhat, desu.

[Anonymous No.17672317]

>>17672296
Dude it's already alive, why should he KYS only to bring suffering for him and those around him? Are you that dumb, nigger?

[Anonymous No.17672366]

>>17672317
You're dodging the question. From a certain perspective, you would have a short amount of suffering but after that your non existence would be a positive development. From a purely utilitarian perspective this seems to be correct. In regards to suffering for those around you, I don't understand why you would care about that as the anti natalist constantly seems to find that his existence for the sake of others is useless. As he finds no redeeming qualities in existence by itself or for his own parents (they are selfish and careless etc).

[Anonymous No.17672371]

>>17672285
We could do faggot sex, just think about it my faggot

[Anonymous No.17672370]

>>17672136
No it doesn't. It affirms my decision to have children and lets me know that in fact is 100% correct and the morally superior choice. One only has to look at Ligotti to know who is right.

[Anonymous No.17672383]

>>17672370
You should look at Silenus who was a Greek God retarded mutt.

[Anonymous No.17672384]

bumpy for may antinatty bros.

[Anonymous No.17672399]

>>17672370
>One only has to look at Ligotti to know who is right.
the greatest living american author? then benatar and the gang are right.

[Anonymous No.17672400]

[Anonymous No.17672412]

>>17672400
Lgbtqioulmop are naive optimists not pessimists you retarded cunt.

[Anonymous No.17672414]

>>17672136
The potential of life outweighs the suffering.
>B-but asymmetry
Doesn't matter

[Anonymous No.17672432]

>almost all of literature is about some kind of conflict and suffering involved
>/lit/ loves bleak and sad shit
>"books for this feel, /lit/?"
>"sad books? my diary, desu"
>someone wrote a book saying that maybe, just maybe, is logic and right that we shouldn't but a child on this world to suffer, that is guarantee to occur
>/lit/ goes nut and ape shit with that idea


Why? Are /lit/ full of hypocrites and literal dumb nigger?

[Anonymous No.17672441]

if you're white have kids
if you aren't don't

simple as

[Anonymous No.17672445]

>>17672414
>hey dude, lets wage someone life! like, the kid could be born ok or with the most heart wrenching condition
>yeah bro, seems a nice idea and a very moral one

[Anonymous No.17672451]

>>17672441
Birth rates in the whole world are declining, especially in Europe. So have fun fun with your daydreams.

[Anonymous No.17672456]

>>17672451
and why is that a bad thing?

[Anonymous No.17672458]

>>17672451
By the end of this century the wold will home to 1 billion nigger roaming around and causing chaos to the world, how to we fight that?

[Anonymous No.17672465]

Here is my argument anti-natalism from autonomy

1)Anti natalists claim that one does not consent to their own birth

2)But in order to consent or not consent to something, one must be autonomous, that is, have the actual ability to choose or make decisions.

3)However those that are non existent do not have autonomy, as they are not alive or conscious to make a decision to consent or not to consent.

4)Therefore, because it is absurd to say that a non existent thing can consent, those in pre-birth neither consent nor not consent.

[Anonymous No.17672466]

Making kids is literally playing with someone else's life. I don't know which kind of psychopath would be ok with making a kid while not having guarantees about the life he/she will have. Terrible diseases, accidents, suffering, having to watch all your loved ones age and die, etc. all so you can die at the end anyway.

[Anonymous No.17672471]

Is having daughters the ultimate cuckoldry?

I cannot think or comprehend of anything more cucked than having a daughter. Honestly, think about it rationally. You are feeding, clothing, raising and rearing a girl for at least 18 years solely so she can go and get ravaged by another man. All the hard work you put into your beautiful little girl - reading her stories at bedtime, making her go to sports practice, making sure she had a healthy diet, educating her, playing with her. All of it has one simple result: her body is more enjoyable for the men that will eventually fuck her in every hole.

Raised the perfect girl? Great. Who benefits? If you're lucky, a random man who had nothing to do with the way she grew up, who marries her. He gets to fuck her tight pussy every night. He gets the benefits of her kind and sweet personality that came from the way you raised her.

As a man who has a daughter, you are LITERALLY dedicating at least 20 years of your life simply to raise a girl for another man to enjoy. It is the ULTIMATE AND FINAL cuck. Think about it logically

[Anonymous No.17672475]

>>17672136
please stop spamming the board

[Anonymous No.17672486]

>>17672441
What if I am half white?

[Anonymous No.17672500]

>>17672136
As a Christian, I can understand why antinatalism is bad (apart from rare cases when people have spiritual reasons), but what is the reasoning for having kids if you are an atheist (and a Buddhist too, BTW)?

[Anonymous No.17672504]

>>17672471
>Is having daughters the ultimate cuckoldry?

No, having a boss is. Just think about it for a second. Anyone can immediately see that capitalism, insofar as it creates a managerial class and establishes a corporate hierarchy, is an immense machine for the perpetuation of cucks. When a man goes to work and he has to answer to another man, he is being cuckolded. You can even say that, by the law of transitivity, a man's boss is in control of a man's wife and kids. He who decides on who remains employed and who gets sacked is the de facto sovereign.

[Anonymous No.17672512]

>>17672475
>spamming the board
>has been a long time since a antinatalism thread
>everyday a muslim psyop shill is spamming and nobody says nothing.

Fuck you, you inbreed goat fucker, go fuck your hairy cousin Khajira, Abdullah

[Anonymous No.17672517]

>>17672471
Never found a any good counter argument, truly having a daughter is a very cuck thing to do.

[Anonymous No.17672530]

>>17672136
From what I can tell, he's arguing that the lack of pain is a good thing, while the lack of pleasure is not a bad thing, and uses this to justify that nonexistence is better than existence.

I find this presupposition to be inaccurate though, as I'd argue that the absence of pleasure is pain. I feel a small degree of pleasure every time I inhale and every time I blink, and not doing these things causes me pain. Therefore the idea that death is eternal suffering because it is the lack of pleasure is just as valid as the idea that death is eternal bliss because it is the lack of pain. Either way any philosophy that makes assumptions about nonexistence is never as valid as those that don't.

Also morality doesn't apply when there's nothing to lend moral consideration to. You only have a moral obligation to something once it exists, therefore making something exist is not an action which you can make moral judgements about.

[Anonymous No.17672535]

>>17672445
Imagine believing the odds are in favor of being born with a horrible disease. You do know these always occur when the mother is abusing alcohol or a substance. Can't believ you're predicating your argument on science when you don't even understand the science.

[Anonymous No.17672537]

>>17672512
fuck the muslim spammers too, but this is't an ideology prominent enough to deserve this many threads, whereas islam is

[Anonymous No.17672554]

Let the cope begin

[Anonymous No.17672562]

are incels invading now or something

[Anonymous No.17672587]

>>17672562
No.

[Anonymous No.17672618]

>>17672504
Oh my God there is literally a hierarchy this is the worst thing imaginable

[Anonymous No.17672621]

>>17672465
The point is that consent is a vital thing to have if you're going to make a decision that concerns someone else. Of course, if someone does not exist yet, you can't consult them to get their consent. The fact that it's impossible to get their consent doesn't change the fact that you DON'T HAVE their consent. And for that reason you can't rightfully subject them to a decision they haven't consented to.
It's the same principle as if they did exist and because of some extenuating circumstances you couldn't get their consent to a decision concerning them. For example, a man disappears off into the wilderness for an undefined period of time and makes a point of eliminating any form of contact so that he can't possibly be reached. It would be wrong for his friend to sell all the man's stuff in the mean time, even though getting the man's consent or nonconsent to such an act would be impossible. Consent is vital, regardless of whether or not it can feasibly be obtained.

[Anonymous No.17672624]

>>17672136
>omqqq, life is like, SO meaningless and everyone should just DIE
>me? no I like being alive

[Anonymous No.17672630]

I was considering this until some anon told me that raising a kid the right way is a good way to improve our society since most people are shitty parents

[Anonymous No.17672633]

>>17672621
>someone else
>them
>their
Are you fucking deranged. Unconceive children are not persons, let alone moral persons.

[Anonymous No.17672640]

>>17672624
you're already alive, it's a different topic to never being born

[Anonymous No.17672655]

>>17672630
Right, but all those kids raised by terrible parents are going to make your kids life hell

[Anonymous No.17672657]

>>17672136
off yourself then, your suffering ends there because you can no longer feel pain and our suffering ends there because we don't have to put up with your incessant whining
its a win-win situation

[Anonymous No.17672703]

>>17672657
Lmao, shitty argument bro.

[Anonymous No.17672710]

>>17672630
>THINK THAT PARETING ACTUALLY MATTER

Just read about behavioral genetics, the only way to have a good kid is to have good parents themselves, if you have a kind with a trashy women, no matter the sheer good dad that you are, the odd are that you will have a trashy daughter or son.

[Anonymous No.17672734]

>>17672633
The antinatalist logic follows exactly that of laws. It's about prevention. Take for example a law against drunk driving. The reason why such a law is good is because it helps to PREVENT bad outcomes. Of course, people are still horribly mangled and killed in accidents involving drunk drivers, but one presumes that the consequences that the law attaches to being caught drunk driving act to deter people from engaging in drunk driving, and thus the frequency of drunk driving goes down. One cannot point to the people walking around at present who were saved by the anti-drunk driving law, but we can be certain that law did in fact prevent many bad outcomes. That's the reason why we made the law and keep it around: it prevents hypothetical bad outcomes. Now take this same logic and apply it to procreation. One can form a practically infinite list of all the bad outcomes that we might be subjected to on this planet, many of which might have a very low probability of occurring, but nonetheless it is easy to conceive of fates that make us shudder, and we should recognize that countless people have existed who have endured such horrific fates. By choosing not to procreate, we prevent all these fates from befalling anyone, and while this takes place in the realm of the hypothetical, in the same vein as our anti-drunk driving law, such a prevention of bad outcomes can only possibly be considered a good thing.

[Anonymous No.17672753]

>>17672710
source? your peehole

[Samuel Tudor No.17672808]

Interesting as far as being able to make a compelling and logical argument that you still know to false without having to know why you know.

I guess it's proof of God in that sense

[Anonymous No.17672884]

>>17672753
Robert plomin blueprint is a good pop into to behavioral genetics

[Anonymous No.17672919]

>>17672136
>>17672209
There is no such thing as moral argument. There is no reason to refute him.

[Anonymous No.17672925]

>>17672512
>has been a long time since a antinatalism thread
Yea. Like 3 hours or smth

[Anonymous No.17672930]

>>17672734
Well yes, they both try to prevent hypothetical situations, but that's about where the parallels stop. Let's consider both of the scenarios they're tryna prevent.

-Drunk driving laws-
Hypothetical before: A driver or pedestrian, presumably with the desire to continue living, and with friends and family who care about them or depend on them.
Hypothetical after: A dead or suffering driver or pedestrian with suffering friends and family.

-Antanatalism-
Hypothetical before: Nonexistence. No feelings, thoughts, desires, preferences, or relationships to speak of. The absence of spirit and body.
Hypothetical after: An individual that experiences or creates suffering

See the difference? One of those "hypothetical befores" deserves moral consideration and another doesn't. Furthermore, only one "hypothetical after" can be confidently said to be worse than its corresponding "hypothetical before," since nothing can be said with confidence about the nature of nonexistence.

[Anonymous No.17672934]

>>17672136
>suffering
Is a joke. You get cold water instead of hot and you bitch and moan about the "nature" of being because you are a weak, pathetic failure. That is all.

[Anonymous No.17672939]

>>17672934
he's gonna call you a midwit, just watch

[Anonymous No.17673056]

>>17672136
>this fucking thread again
For fucksake i want kids and that's final, whoever overrides his natural instinct to create offsprings because of a fucking book is not smart, but a weak pussy at best

[Anonymous No.17673085]

>>17672930
I don't understand the distinction you're trying to make. Why does the latter not warrant moral consideration? There is a chain of cause and effect that results in the birth of a child. Why does it matter how far back you take the act of prevention? We humans have intelligence that allows us to foresee potential outcomes down the line. We can see beforehand that procreation leads to a situation where we have a human being who experiences suffering and can potentially be subjected to a variety of horrific events. The particular identity of that human doesn't matter, but rather our recognition that humans as a class can and do experience such trauma. If we managed to create a simulator such that when we turn it on it is populated by a number of sentient AIs who will then be tortured pointlessly, would ethics not factor at all into the question of whether we should turn it on or not?

[Anonymous No.17673097]

>>17673056
Based

[Anonymous No.17673136]

>>17672136
What if I like to watch antinatalists suffer and I will teach my children to do the same?

[Anonymous No.17673253]

>>17672136
Fuck you I'm having kids

[Anonymous No.17673261]

>>17672136
Anon at least don't post the same picture of the book from the same angle every time we do this thread

[Anonymous No.17673270]

>>17672136
Nobody's gonna override their biological and emotional inclination to have kids because some faggot decided to write a book. Give up and move on to another philosophy anon. Try one that emphasizes making people's lives better

[Anonymous No.17673297]

>have a massive fucking ego, be a completely self-absorbed twat
>misinterpret everything in the universe which doesnt serve you personally to improve your condition as "suffering"
>terrified of finality and your own insignificance, interpret this as "suffering"
>misinterpret the concept of consent, interpret this as "suffering"
>interpret all of existence in such asinine, childish, self-serving ways as "does this make me happy? then it's good, unless it makes someone else unhappy" and "does this make me sad? then it's bad in all cases"
>have to rely on misinterpretations of famous thinkers and religious figures who directly contradict antinatalist idiotic conclusions, ignore that these contradictions exist and cherrypick only what supports their ego-defense mechanism against being an insufferably selfish and childish twat
>extend this concept to THINK OF THE CHILDREN sententious bullshit, arrive to conclusion that continuing life is an act of violence
Nothing to be sorry about, OP. David Benatar is a pseud who doesn't understand that the universe doesn't exist for his personal happiness or the difference between simplistic overthinking and actual analysis (like every antinatalist). Only idiots and losers who are equally childish and self-centered can ever read antinatalism and think it makes the remotest sense.
It's the academic equivalent of the Tumblr Depression Death Cult.

[Anonymous No.17673319]

>>17673297
Based

[Anonymous No.17673320]

What the fuck is wrong with Google images? If you google 'david benatar' it shows a bunch of Peter Singer photographs.

[Anonymous No.17673358]

>>17672266
This but unironically

[Anonymous No.17673422]

>>17673297
>my interpretation is right, his interpretations is wrong
Great argument
>the universe doesn't exist for his personal happiness
And that's good because? What's your goal of existence? Are you another larping christian?

[Anonymous No.17673431]

>>17672162
Mindset embarrassing and what?

[Anonymous No.17673438]

It’s literally impossible to state that life is “asymmetrically” full of suffering because what is considered good and bad purely relies on the individual. It’s also stupid to compare existence to non-existence because it’s like asking whether a cup full of piss or an empty cup has the better liquid. The empty one will never have the better liquid. Antinatalism is just cope for genetic failures

[Anonymous No.17673489]

>>17673438
WHAT? So you have no preference whether to drink piss or nothing at all (when you are not in desperate need of liquid)? Anon, this is a beautiful analogy, but I don't think it supports the position you meant to support. Yes, non-existent people need life as much as regular person needs a cup of piss.

[Anonymous No.17673699]

>>17673320
Dude is truly anonymous, nobody know mr Benatar face, truly a mestiruous man.

[Anonymous No.17673708]

>>17673438
>Muh genetics
>Muh incel
>Have sex

Like a animal, this being doesn't think, just groans

[Anonymous No.17674312]

Bump

[Anonymous No.17674364]

>>17672182
But if you haven't read his book, how do you know what he preaches?

[Anonymous No.17674381]

>>17673438
>Antinatalism is just cope for genetic failures

It's more like the philosophical cope because of an economy that increasingly can no longer sustain people having children.

It's not a coincidence that in a time that decadent capitalism has completely annihilated a historical middle class, such that people can no longer have children without completely impoverishing themselves, you suddenly get an increase in cynical hatred for having children. It's literally a psychological defense mechanism.

[Anonymous No.17674400]

>>17673422
>What's your goal of existence
To crank out a son who could beat me in mortal combat, the same as every living creature since the good old unicellular days
Have antinatalists addressed how stupid it sounds that the telos of life itself is apparently a multi-million year evolutionary quest to get smart enough that we can conclude to just throw in the towel on a planet-wide scale? Is that the same telos for a population of whatever beat will be the next to get smart once humans voluntarily go extinct?

[Anonymous No.17674422]

>>17674381
I know that NOOOO YOU CAN’T JUST GO BY ANECDOTES but an old friend of mine became a hardcore antinatalist and got into “polyamory” after his longterm gf left him and he developed depression. Now that he’s doing better he’s reconsidered it and seems to be monogamous again.
Everything about these new-age anti-life philosophies reeks of spiritual cope. If you’re unhappy with your life I can’t even blame you, but I at least wish they would admit that to themselves instead of making weak arguments as to why everyone healthy has to agree with them. It’s like a fat woman claiming not that being fat is her personal choice (sure), but that fit people are the ones who are wrong.

[Anonymous No.17674430]

>>17672136
>if suffering has any value at all or worthy
That has never been a question. Suffering itself has no value and does not even merit consideration. All pain, even agony, is merely information before the senses, data in the computer of the mind. David Benatar relies on suffering having a negative value; he is just as guilty as the rest of them.

[Anonymous No.17674452]

Imagine being able to adopt any moral system and you GENUINELY choose negative utilitarianism holy fuck
You could have just screamed "I'M AN INCEL I'M AN INCEL" over and over again and it would convey the same message

[Anonymous No.17674453]

>>17672136
Qué No Sabe Follar, Dice

[Anonymous No.17674459]

>>17674452
>>17674453
same idea at the same time

[Anonymous No.17674480]

>Economy increasingly can't sustain child-rearing
>This actually makes people mad because they want kids
>instead of demanding a political change they just create a philosophical cope that says "actually having children is bad lol"

[Anonymous No.17674492]

>>17672182
based

[Anonymous No.17674506]

>>17672136
The rare, fleeting moments of sublime beauty that existence provides are enough to make it worthwhile

[Anonymous No.17674525]

>>17672136
Have you ever composed an English sentence before?

[Anonymous No.17674535]

All jews get mawkish when they moralise.

[Anonymous No.17675296]

>>17674400
>telos
Thanks for the infallible sign to disregard anything you say.

[Anonymous No.17675304]

ITT

[Anonymous No.17675327]

>>17673297
>>17674400
looks like someone based their "life philosophy" off of /pol/ screencaps and motivational pics from reddit

[Anonymous No.17675449]

To this day I've never heard a satisfying answer to "why don't you kill yourself" from an antinatalist, or how if you cop out on "n-no, it's different when you're already alive!" then somehow arrive at your conclusion to questions like involuntary euthanasia, which seems to get a different response from every antinatalist you ask.

[Anonymous No.17675511]

>>17672136
Only normalfags oppose antinatalism. They're sheeple after all.

[Anonymous No.17675562]

>>17672136
honestly anti-natalism is correct for the vast majority of mankind. most of human life is not worth perpetuating as the people living them don't even enjoy them and having not been so deceived by the banality of life would end them. further more they don't have the time or resources for the children to be fully free of them ever, stunting them forever and forcing them into the same cycle of regular life. however some people have the ability via resources or general deadbeatness to abandon their children allowing them to most likely expierence the full subjectivity required to truly be human at all but even then it's a crapshoot.

[Anonymous No.17675569]

>>17675511
all argument this easy
normie=cringe
sperg=based
normies reproduce spergs don't

[Anonymous No.17675597]

>>17675569
Most people on this earth don't deserve to reproduce but do anyways. Someone or something needs to put an end to it, for the good of humanity.

[Anonymous No.17675635]

>>17675304
fixed

[Anonymous No.17675673]

>>17672201
cmon anon a lot of people don’t want kids, they’re called redditors

[Anonymous No.17675721]

>>17673297
Based

[Anonymous No.17675742]

>>17675597
it's not even that they deserve it or not they are mostly likely perfectly good people who have the personal virtue or talent or potential or whatever, it's simply the material realities of the world that make life by and large not worth reproducing. odds are regardless of how good you are you will just wage cuck half the time and get caught up in dumb bullshit regarding your family, loved ones, friends for the rest of your life.

[Anonymous No.17675743]

>>17675449
Antinatalists to stick it out it in order to spread antinatalism as a philosophy. The goal of all real antinatalists (i.e., efilists) is the elimination of all sentient life, something that an individual obviously can't do on his own. Somehow, the public must be convinced of the truth of the antinatalist position so that we can then collectively usher sentient life out of existence.
Aside from that, many are simply scared of dying like everyone else. This isn't a contradiction, but rather further support for the antinatalist position. Why force conscious beings to wrestle with and rationalize their own inevitable deaths? This is a form of psychological torture, and it would obviously be better if no one had to go through it. Naturally, the fear of death can be outweighed by other forms of suffering, leading to suicide. Benatar's distinction between a life worth starting and a life worth continuing seema perfectly reasonable.

[Anonymous No.17675856]

>>17675743
I disagree that the main goal of all anti-natalists is the end of sentient life. perhaps their aversion to birth it being robbed of a better one in the spiritual void or the destruction of a world that made life unlivable

[Anonymous No.17676162]

My genes are great. I have an obligation to spread them as much as possible. You ugos can keep pretending that you're galaxy brains for not breeding, but deep down yku know it's because you're dygenic

[Anonymous No.17676839]

>>17672196
>>17672215
>>17672294
Notice how all the anti natalist cucks can say is insults when faced with their refutation. Imagine thinking that you are doing someone a favor by preventing them from coming into existence while clinging desperately onto your own.

[Anonymous No.17676851]

>>17675743
That's a bizarre argument, on one hand you want to desperately cling onto your life out of fear (this means you think you have something to lose), and you are using this fear that your life has value as evidence that your life doesnt have value?? This is a fundamental contradiction.

[Anonymous No.17676938]

>>17676162
This.

[Anonymous No.17676948]

Antinatalism ist the biggest cope for bad genes ever.
What an emberassment!

[Anonymous No.17677184]

>>17672471

Depends on the mindset you have as a parent. You don't treat your kid like a project, but like a wild animal that you take care off for a bit and then send it back to the jungle to roam free.

[Anonymous No.17677189]

>>17676948
Yet low class low IQ white trash breed a lot

[Anonymous No.17677198]

>>17676948
Antinatalism is the biggest cope for being high IQ.
What an privilege!

Empedocles - no kids, an hero
Heraclitus - no kids
Silenus - no kids
Parmenides - no kids
Plato - gay nigga
Epicurus - no kids
Epictetus - no kids
Bodhidharma - no kids
Zhuang - no kids
Abhinavagupta - no kids
Shankaracharya - no kids
Mani - no kids
Al-Kindi - no kids
Al-Farabi - no kids
Averroes - no kids
Avicenna - no kids
Aquinas - no kids
Spinoza - no kids
Kant - no kids
Leibniz - no kids
Hume - no kids
Kierkegaard - no kids
Fourier - no kids
Schopenhauer - no kids
Stirner - no kids
Mainländer - no kids, an hero
Nietzsche - no kids
Weininger - no kids, an hero
Michelstaedter - no kids, an hero
Spengler - no kids
Wittgenstein - gay nigga
Zapffe - no kids
Weil - no kids
Evola - no kids
Arendt - no kids
Beauvoir - no kids
Sartre - no kids
Debord - no kids, an hero
Caraco - no kids, an hero
Cioran - no kids
Althusser - no kids
Foucault - gay nigga
Kaczynski - no kids
John Gray - no kids

[Anonymous No.17677203]

>>17672182

Against birth =/= against life.

[Anonymous No.17677211]

>>17672930
>Hypothetical before: Nonexistence. No feelings, thoughts, desires, preferences, or relationships to speak of. The absence of spirit and body.

Doubt it.

[Anonymous No.17677212]

>>17673297
>>misinterpret everything in the universe which doesnt serve you personally to improve your condition as "suffering"

What is the correct interpretation then?

[Anonymous No.17677216]

>>17673438
>It’s also stupid to compare existence to non-existence because it’s like asking whether a cup full of piss or an empty cup has the better liquid. The empty one will never have the better liquid.

All the MORE reason to oppose birth.

[Anonymous No.17677238]

I'm gonna have 3+ kids. Are you angry OP?

[Anonymous No.17677251]

>>17677238
>I'm gonna have 3+ kids
>Said the frogposter on a Mongolian basket weaving forum

[Anonymous No.17677305]

>>17674430
Based

[Anonymous No.17677309]

>>17674452
>Sex
>Incel
>Doesn't know any real life antinatalist
>Go on make assumptions and projections

Brainlet move and insecure as fuck

[Anonymous No.17677323]

>>17677251
I'm a married man, and I post frogs.
Do not mistake everyone else for yourself.

[Anonymous No.17677337]

>>17677189
As do niggers and browns, because life's fondest desire is to perpetuate life, and they aren't smart enough to neurotically think themselves out of that core knowledge.

[Anonymous No.17677341]

>>17672182
based

[Anonymous No.17677456]

>>17672136
what if you are a rich person and can ensure that your children have access to any pleasures they can imagine? are you obligated to have as many children as possible? Seems like you are purposely taking away possible pleasure if not. I don't see how that is any different to a utilitarian than having the opportunity to prevent suffering and not doing it.

btw, utilitarianism is fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.17677669]

>>17672196 #
>>17672215 #
>>17672294 #
Antinatards backed into a corner yet again by the hypocrisy of staying alive, have to resort to ad hominem

[Anonymous No.17677701]

>>17677203
He's against birth because life is allegedly bad

[Anonymous No.17677715]

>>17677669
You're silly and dumb.

>A-antinatalist are coping and incel!
>n-no look! they are ad homien my!

Brainlet take

[Anonymous No.17677780]

>>17672136
Consider the following, and give me ONE good and non-refutable argument after this, why an antinatalist shouldn't kill themselves

> b-b-but muh grieving family, muh grieving loved ones
Oh sorry, isn't life all about suffering in general? The suffering of a grieving person is FAR shorter than the suffering of a whole lifetime, infact, why don't you go on a murder spree on children? They have a whole life ahead of them, infact, kill their parents too! Make sure you especially focus on killing everyone with no close relatives as well! You'll be reducing the suffering in the world so much!

> muh survival instinct
Every person who truly can't handle their suffering eventually overpowers their survival instinct, every single one of them, if you're not seriously, seriously considering and preparing to commit suicide, then you can handle your suffering, but you're just too much of a stuck-up bitch to not grandstand and virtue signal about your pessimism.

> muh asymmetry
1. Life is not a binary pleasure and pain ride, unless you can sufficiently refute the utility monster, the fact so many would refuse the pleasure machine, so many would refuse the experience machine, prove that all intellectual activities are valued solely for pleasure, and prove that it's not our moral obligation to kill anhedoniacs.

2. So absence of happiness is not bad? Why is anhedonia disliked?

3. You don't get to define the rules, you're the ones making claims that contradict most people's intuitions, such as nonexistent beings, which are entirely imaginary, being in a positive state, rather than a neutral/null state, or that happiness in general is a neutral and not positive things; since these claims contradict intuition, the burden of proof is on you that most people are insane for valuing their happiness and preferring to stay alive, not on us to show that what we value is genuinely valuable to the majority.

> cope, cope, you're coping, you're delusional
Ad hominem nonarguments.

[Anonymous No.17677867]

>>17672136
no it doesnt.
Because existence is inevitable

[Anonymous No.17677901]

>>17672182
based
people who don't walk the talk are not worth listening to

[Anonymous No.17677906]

>>17677715
>still no refutation
As expected.

[Anonymous No.17678060]

>>17677780
>so many would refuse the experience machine
I have always thought that this thought experiment (and it's offshoots like the matrix) is incredibly insightful on human motivation. There is a book (or lecture) titled Death and the Afterlife by Samuel Sheffler that touches on similar themes about what motivates us ethically:

"In Death and the Afterlife, philosopher Samuel Scheffler poses this thought experiment in order to show that the continued life of the human race after our deaths--the "afterlife" of the title--matters to us to an astonishing and previously neglected degree. Indeed, Scheffler shows that, in certain important respects, the future existence of people who are as yet unborn matters more to us than our own continued existence and the continued existence of those we love. Without the expectation that humanity has a future, many of the things that now matter to us would cease to do so. By contrast, the prospect of our own deaths does little to undermine our confidence in the value of our activities. Despite the terror we may feel when contemplating our deaths, the prospect of humanity's imminent extinction would pose a far greater threat to our ability to lead lives of wholehearted engagement. Scheffler further demonstrates that, although we are not unreasonable to fear death, personal immortality, like the imminent extinction of humanity, would also undermine our confidence in the values we hold dear. His arresting conclusion is that, in order for us to lead value-laden lives, what is necessary is that we ourselves should die and that others should live."

[Anonymous No.17678067]

>>17677906
All I see is coping

[Anonymous No.17678083]

>>17678067
There is nothing to cope against.

[Anonymous No.17678133]

>>17676839
>>17677669
read the goddamn book, for the love of god. there is no equivalency between not being born and comitting suicide. its embarassing for you.

[Anonymous No.17678206]

>>17672180
Suffering is good. The existence of suffering should not negate existence but rather its absence should. The worst people are those who grew up without any financial struggle or health struggle. They're prideful pieces of shit who think they did everything right in their life. Whereas someone who grew up in poverty or suffered or even died through bone cancer was a better person because of it. If you could make the world suffer 1000x more, it would unironically be a better place.

[Anonymous No.17678797]

>>17678067
Calling something "cope" with no argument is also an ad hominem, try harder

[Anonymous No.17678886]

>>17672934
so badass dude. wanna know how i know youve never suffered in your life?

[Anonymous No.17678927]

>>17672136
Its compassionate to put children in the world because in the future humans could help alleviate the suffering of beings on other planets, humanity has to exist in the future for that to happen.

[Anonymous No.17678955]

>>17674452
no one in this thread is going to reproduce so benatar wins in any case lmfao

[Anonymous No.17678986]

>>17678955
Including (you).

[Anonymous No.17679005]

Antinatalism is simply the final redpill, but breeders cannot handle this fact, so they take to seething and coping and the famous "muh kill yourself" non-argument (AN isn't about not living, but rather about not birthing children).

[Anonymous No.17679025]

>>17677669
It's not a refutation, Like I said here: >>17679005 , But it's a cope from the breeders on /lit/ who think they can deboonk AN's arguments by asking why they haven't KYS:d yet, but hey, AN was never a suicide cult, it was always a not-having-kids cult, so it means that AN:s win again.

[Anonymous No.17679291]

>>17679005
and when did you address any of the points made by this anon? - >>17677780

[Anonymous No.17679331]

Antinatalism implies promortalism.
>http://jiwoonhwang.org/pro-mortalism/

[Anonymous No.17679399]

>>17679291
I have read his post thoroughly, and I truely can't find any points worth addressing. His post comes off as very confusing and rambling.

[Anonymous No.17679420]

>>17677780
anti-natalists btfo

[Anonymous No.17679424]

>>17679420
Not so much.

[Anonymous No.17679756]

>>17677780

Because they are against birth, not against life.

[Anonymous No.17679771]

>>17672182
Based. Utilitarian ethics is retarded anyway. Imagine thinking it’s wrong to give birth.

[Anonymous No.17679811]

>>17679771
I say that it is wrong to cause children to come about by having sexual intercourse, as for the act of giving birth I do not regard it, as it is only a natural consequence of conception, but it is conception in the traditional sense that I am against as an AN.

[Anonymous No.17679818]

>>17677198
>literally none of them were anti-natalist
Lmao

[Anonymous No.17679820]

>>17679818
Why is that funny?

[Anonymous No.17679832]

>>17679818
Besides zapffe who was a retard
>>17679820
Because it means the premise that antinatalism is for high iq people is false.

[Anonymous No.17679838]

>>17672432
/lit/ is full of existential masochists

[Anonymous No.17679845]

>>17679832
>Because it means the premise that antinatalism is for high iq people is false.
No it doesn't necessarily mean that.

[Anonymous No.17679861]

>>17679845
Technically your correct it just means his argument is garbage.

[Anonymous No.17679871]

>>17679861
His argument may be bad but it does not mean AN is bad. If you want to be AN, you need to first and foremost supress your desire to have sex. If you can't do that, you can't live as an AN. That's a big reason why we see a lot of breeders on /lit/ struggling to argue against AN, for many of them it's because they want to keep cooming (having sexual orgasm, in one way or another).

[Anonymous No.17679924]

>[5] And still I, John, questioned the Lord, saying, "Lord, how did man have spiritual origin in a carnal body?" And the Lord said to me: "By their fall spirits of heaven entered the female body of clay and took on flesh from the lusts of the flesh and took on [spirit at the same time]. . . . Spirit is born of spirit and flesh of flesh; and thus the reign of Satan ceases not in this world."

Fellow Cathar Anti-natalist Gigachads, where are you at.

[Anonymous No.17679955]

>>17679818
My point was that none of them had kids.
But sure it's a shitpost in response to a shipost.
Also more than ten philosophers on that list were pessimist.

[Anonymous No.17680417]

>>17672414
You'd better have as many kids as physically possible. In fact you should be impregnating every fertile woman who enters your sight.

[Anonymous No.17680497]

>>17673297
Self absorbed twats don't consider the consequences of their actions and how they can potentially hurt others. Complete anti-natalism is silly in practice but it challenges us in an important way. What kind of parents are we if we don't consider the circumstances of our child's birth? Our ability to provide for their development and prepare them for the hardships they will face?

[Anonymous No.17680541]

>>17677780
BASED
>>17679756
They're against birth on the assumption that life is not worth it

[Anonymous No.17680605]

[Anonymous No.17680617]

[Anonymous No.17680745]

>>17672182
Monumentally based

[Anonymous No.17680749]

>>17680745
Cope

[Anonymous No.17681081]

>>17672136
There is literally no point to thinking like this. There's no way to solve that without creating more suffering than there already is. Suffering gives value to joy.

[Anonymous No.17681178]

>>17673422
>and that's good because?
I reject the presupposition that good is desirable to the point that you may disregard all else.

[Anonymous No.17681633]

>>17680605
Breeders can't cope at all, kek

[Anonymous No.17681646]

>a simple book make the entire /lit/ seethe hard and go nuts

Kek

[Anonymous No.17681994]

>grandparents enjoy life
>parents enjoy life
>I enjoy life
>have kids to keep it going

[Anonymous No.17682032]

>>17681994
And how are you sure that your kid would go on to have such good life? You know that you don't have control over all of your child's life, so, you're gambling which your child's life.

[Anonymous No.17682064]

>>17672317
The suffering caused by suicide is a social construct. We should de stigmatize suicide

[Anonymous No.17682079]

>>17672441
Based as fuck

[Anonymous No.17682099]

>>17681633
>that could not have befallen one had one not come into existence
How do you justify depriving a would be life of the joys you can only experience if you're alive.
"It can be bad, therefore it's not worth it" This just seems defeatist.

>>17682032
Yeah, this is just defeatism. Beside that, your child isn't a die. There's something dreadfully ironic about anti natalists refusing humans their agency in the name of not making them unhappy.

>>17682064
How does suicide magically make the loss of loved ones not hurt.

[Anonymous No.17682123]

>>17682032
I’d rather gamble than not play, watch the new Disney movie out on Disney+ now for £7.99 a month called Soul. Is all this life really worth dying for