Antinatilism General

Literally no one mentioned anything even remotely related to /pol/. You have a serious problem.

>using phrases like goy and race traitor
Sorry kid you gave yourself away. Try harder to conceal your fedora next time.

For a board about literature you sure lack basic reading comprehension.

And you wonder why your view isn't more popular.

I never said race traitor. I said traitorous filth, which you are. Also an anti-natlism fag calling someone else a fedora, hilarious.

>goy and race traitor
>phrases
?

>bad things occasionally happen
>therefore, my complete and utter failure to attract a sexual mate is actually not a sign of my inadequacy, but the mark of a profound spiritual and moral excellence as well as intellectual insight beyond the scope of mere mortal beings

That's pretty much all of antinatalism summed up. Take it to /r9k/, they're the ones who need it.

antinatalsm on this site is mainly for virgins and other unfortunates to feel better about themselves not getting any. to make a virtue of necessity.

That's some serious projection, assuming that anyone who holds this view does so because of involuntary celibacy.

Do you know what a vasectomy is?

hey it's that guy who thinks he's doing "research" by wanking over stories about teenage girls being tortured

I don't get all the responses in this thread

I'm 34, married, I've slept with over 40 women before marriage.

Life is objectively terrible and I wouldn't dare inflict it upon anyone else, and neither should you.

Funny how before the pol invasion Veeky Forums was actually capable of discussing procreative and population ethics.

Not OP here. Anti-natalism can be reasonably argued for, but random appeals to emotion by pointing at horrific instances of abuse and suffering are, of course, not part of such lines of reasoning. OP is an abrasive, short-fused clown.

>That's some serious projection, assuming that anyone who holds this view does so because of involuntary celibacy.

Saying "projection" instead of "takes one to know one" doesn't make the charge any less ridiculous.

>Do you know what a vasectomy is?

Yes I do. I also know of a certain and demographically significant subset of Veeky Forums users whose psychological motivations are painfully transparent, and who are richly represented in every shitty antinatalism thread.

why do white people get angry so easily? antinatalism doesn't even have anything to do with race and all you see in it is white genocide

it's basically playing the race card.

School Shooter General

It's because no non-white person would ever understand antinatalism. It's de facto an exclusively white philosophy.

You know you've created a bubble around yourself when your reaction to an idea is based on a subset of users of a website in a dark corner of the internet. My only "motivation" here was using antinatalism as an excuse to post these stories. Race and sex hadn't even crossed my mind.

I knew /pol/ was an Israeli board. No wonder they want eugenics everywhere, it's already a thing in their favorite country!

that's racist

Okay. Is it wrong?

it doesn't matter because it's racist.

>You know you've created a bubble around yourself when your reaction to an idea is based on a subset of users of a website in a dark corner of the internet.

Not quite. That's not so much creating a bubble as having a rudimentary understanding of context.

>My only "motivation" here was using antinatalism as an excuse to post these stories. Race and sex hadn't even crossed my mind.

Right, so in your very next sentence you admit it wasn't about the idea, but edgelord obsession over human suffering.

>What is buddhism

Certainly not anti-natalism. The crux of the anti-natalist position (the attribution of negative moral value to the practice of procreation) is very different from any Buddhist position I'm familiar with. "We ought to seek non-existence" just by itself is not anti-natalism.

Veeky Forums - literature

although really at this point it's just general shrieking

>two very specific, exceedingly special/rare cases are supposed to convince us that it's better to not have been born

Child of Rage and Cement Girl are tv productions not books.

Sorry, forgot the documentary about Genie is also a tv production. You'll probably like Child of Rage too. Just do it on

You listed the lightbulb twice. How did all that stuff reduce her brain size?

ripeace.wordpress.com/2012/09/14/the-murder-of-junko-furuta-44-days-of-hell/

That guy does not look happy

If I hated humanity I would not care to end its addiction to suffering

normies run on emotions though. Any argument against antinatalism always comes down to some Nietzshean aesthetic woowoo.

Getting a vasectomy is giving ultimate control to your wife. You will never be able to give her or any other woman babies, while she can just decide one day that she changed her mind and babies are the best thing and then proceeding to cuck our vasectomee with his best friend.

maybe if you're a fart-huffing brainlet

There's no ethics involved in "I don't want the human race to continue".

Not one mention of the white race was made until you brought it up. When I said you were a traitor I meant you were a traitor to humanity.

I don't get this racial argument at all. For instance I could imagine a determined antinatalist who has mean going to subsaharan africa under the guise of immunizing local populations against various forms of disease but in fact sterilizing them in the process.

>general thread
>no sticky

In herodotus' histories, he talks about this tribe that starts crying when a baby is born because of all the sufferings they have to experience, and then celebrate deaths becasue they get to leave the world and be free of their pain.

Just looking at OP is enough to convince us that it's better for OP to never have been born.

Thinking that this is an "antinatalism argument" is a logical fallacy, however.

he also talked about giant gold-digging ants from India

Awesome.

that one was true though

I don't think you understand why anti-natalists hold their position. If you are arguing that man is immoral, then anti-natalism isn't necessarily the next step.

Antinatalism is blasphemy against humankind -- glory be upon it -- prepare yourself, heretic!

but really antinatalism is just pretending everyone is suffering and hateful of existence either because you are or you pretend you are (contrarianism, edginess, etc), the only legitimate arguments -- which are soft ethical arguments -- are just a means to a preestablished end, some subjective conclusion of which any could make widely different conclusions from the same line of thought- in other words, it's as valid as faith in a god (for many: very valid). Although maybe less so, given that "faith in a god" aims towards something, or at least makes "something", antinatalism is a shallow void of (usually) self-pity. It makes one (generally subtractive) point and adds nothing else. Given some shallow ethics, as ""theorising"" of ethics almost always is, you can come to the conclusion of antinatalism, this is emotionless and innocent, but this is not the reasoning of so-called antinatalists. They just like the idea, it attracts them because it fits with their worldview and personality. They espouse vague instances of suffering as hard evidence.

kid I honestly don't give a fuck about what you have to say

Antinatalism threads are the very worst

>America have terrible laws
>therefore, humanity should end

>I'm 34, married, I've slept with over 40 women before marriage.
A hedonist is telling me life is bad? Am I supposed to be convinced?

Why are you Americans so insufferable?

>Genie masturbated excessively, which prove
d to be the most serious antisocial behavior problem of all. Despite admonishments, she continued to masturbate as often as possible, anywhere and everywhere. Many of the items she coveted were objects with which to mastur
bate, and she would attempt to do so, regardless of where she was. She was drawn to chair backs, chair arms, counter edges, door knobs, door edges, table corners, car handles, car mirrors, and so forth; in essence, indoors and outdoors she was continually attempting to masturbate. The first month, when I saw Genie almost daily, I spent the time trying to get to know her and to establish a relationship with her that would help her develop trust in me and enable me to work with her effectively.

>a website in a dark corner of the internet
lmao how new are you. Veeky Forums is squarely in the mainstream and has been for years.

yes because the only way people can go on enjoying life in good faith is by being inconsiderate of the rock-solid foundations antinatalism is built upon, and therefore any tactic, no matter how low or rhetorically flimsy is deployed as an argument by the insidious lifer.

Death to antihumans

>putting piece of meat in other meat is "mark of adequacy"

but what if i have children and they will have terrible life. They could suffer or they could not but by not giving birth to them i could be sure that eventual suffering is not my cause. Isnt this reasonable thing to do?

Sounds reasonable. It at least absolves you from any responsibility.
If you do wish to have children, you could argue that you're giving them the choice - if their life is miserable they can opt out.

We could just weed out teh weak genes of the life-haters. I am sure that antinatalists simply have a genetic defect. Antinatalists shouldn't have children and leave functioning people alone with their rationalizations.

Pessimism is alright, but posthumanism is better.

i don't need to argue for anything, this guys face speaks on it's own.

>Antinatalists shouldn't have children

wow

cool false flag antinatalfaggot

>We could just weed out teh weak genes of the life-haters. I am sure that antinatalists simply have a genetic defect.
Antinatalism has been around since the ancient Greeks and the Old Testament, and it's a meme not a gene.

It will probably be round until the end times, when antinatalism finally wins out over the natalist hordes.

I don't plan on having children. I have no problem getting laid whatsoever. antinatalism will never be accepted by the majority. antinatalists who spout their opinion are the worst. it's a horrible group. no different than atheists who argue with religious people for the sake of "debate" and winning arguments. write an essay or a book and leave it at that. people that are interested will be drawn to it and that's that. debates are the most vile activity you can take part in. I saw benatar debating Peterson and it was a shitshow as usual. 2 people who have already made up their minds showing their fangs.

its a big dark corner

The two facts which attract almost every normal person to children are, first, that they are very serious, and, secondly, that they are in consequence very happy. They are jolly with the completeness which is possible only in the absence of humour. The most unfathomable schools and sages have never attained to the gravity which dwells in the eyes of a baby of three months old. It is the gravity of astonishment at the universe, and astonishment at the universe is not mysticism, but a transcendent common-sense. The fascination of children lies in this: that with each of them all things are remade, and the universe is put again upon its trial. As we walk the streets and see below us those delightful bulbous heads, three times too big for the body, which mark these human mushrooms, we ought always primarily to remember that within every one of these heads there is a new universe, as new as it was on the seventh day of creation. In each of those orbs there is a new system of stars, new grass, new cities, a new sea.

There is always in the healthy mind an obscure prompting that religion teaches us rather to dig than to climb; that if we could once understand the common clay of earth we should understand everything. Similarly, we have the sentiment that if we could destroy custom at a blow and see the stars as a child sees them, we should need no other apocalypse. This is the great truth which has always lain at the back of baby-worship, and which will support it to the end. Maturity, with its endless energies and aspirations, may easily be convinced that it will find new things to appreciate; but it will never be convinced, at bottom, that it has properly appreciated what it has got. We may scale the heavens and find new stars innumerable, but there is still the new star we have not found--that on which we were born.

But the influence of children goes further than its first trifling effort of remaking heaven and earth. It forces us actually to remodel our conduct in accordance with this revolutionary theory of the marvellousness of all things. We do (even when we are perfectly simple or ignorant)--we do actually treat talking in children as marvellous, walking in children as marvellous, common intelligence in children as marvellous. The cynical philosopher fancies he has a victory in this matter--that he can laugh when he shows that the words or antics of the child, so much admired by its worshippers, are common enough. The fact is that this is precisely where baby-worship is so profoundly right. Any words and any antics in a lump of clay are wonderful, the child's words and antics are wonderful, and it is only fair to say that the philosopher's words and antics are equally wonderful.

The truth is that it is our attitude towards children that is right, and our attitude towards grown-up people that is wrong. Our attitude towards our equals in age consists in a servile solemnity, overlying a considerable degree of indifference or disdain. Our attitude towards children consists in a condescending indulgence, overlying an unfathomable respect. We bow to grown people, take off our hats to them, refrain from contradicting them flatly, but we do not appreciate them properly. We make puppets of children, lecture them, pull their hair, and reverence, love, and fear them. When we reverence anything in the mature, it is their virtues or their wisdom, and this is an easy matter. But we reverence the faults and follies of children.

We should probably come considerably nearer to the true conception of things if we treated all grown-up persons, of all titles and types, with precisely that dark affection and dazed respect with which we treat the infantile limitations. A child has a difficulty in achieving the miracle of speech, consequently we find his blunders almost as marvellous as his accuracy. If we only adopted the same attitude towards Premiers and Chancellors of the Exchequer, if we genially encouraged their stammering and delightful attempts at human speech, we should be in a far more wise and tolerant temper. A child has a knack of making experiments in life, generally healthy in motive, but often intolerable in a domestic commonwealth. If we only treated all commercial buccaneers and bumptious tyrants on the same terms, if we gently chided their brutalities as rather quaint mistakes in the conduct of life, if we simply told them that they would 'understand when they were older,' we should probably be adopting the best and most crushing attitude towards the weaknesses of humanity. In our relations to children we prove that the paradox is entirely true, that it is possible to combine an amnesty that verges on contempt with a worship that verges upon terror. We forgive children with the same kind of blasphemous gentleness with which Omar Khayyam forgave the Omnipotent.

The essential rectitude of our view of children lies in the fact that we feel them and their ways to be supernatural while, for some mysterious reason, we do not feel ourselves or our own ways to be supernatural. The very smallness of children makes it possible to regard them as marvels; we seem to be dealing with a new race, only to be seen through a microscope. I doubt if anyone of any tenderness or imagination can see the hand of a child and not be a little frightened of it. It is awful to think of the essential human energy moving so tiny a thing; it is like imagining that human nature could live in the wing of a butterfly or the leaf of a tree. When we look upon lives so human and yet so small, we feel as if we ourselves were enlarged to an embarrassing bigness of stature. We feel the same kind of obligation to these creatures that a deity might feel if he had created something that he could not understand.

But the humorous look of children is perhaps the most endearing of all the bonds that hold the Cosmos together. Their top-heavy dignity is more touching than any humility; their solemnity gives us more hope for all things than a thousand carnivals of optimism; their large and lustrous eyes seem to hold all the stars in their astonishment; their fascinating absence of nose seems to give to us the most perfect hint of the humour that awaits us in the kingdom of heaven.

fuck off fucker

Go cry in a corner.

you're kind of a windbag, aren't you?

Since you are probably for eugenics, why not just extend it to all of humanity? The final redpill is seeing that all human problems are constitutive of the failure of the human experiment, that nothing better can emerge out of it, and that the only solution to them is a mass (voluntary or involuntary) opting out of our reproductive capacities. There is no progress to be made

lmao
reddit.com/r/offmychest/comments/1jatvd/i_am_not_proud_of_my_son/

Just kill him lol

>my life sucks
>or my life doesnt suck but it maynw could have
>therefore nobody should ever be born it's not worth the risk
i just

>Some highlights from her stay

Makes it sound like she checked into a fucking hotel for this.

Oh, another reddit shit that didn't happen story. Those are ever so much fun.