Philosophical debate

Your views are idiotic. You are the idiot for trying to convince others of anything.

Let them suffer. No one will understand. They aren't ready.

The best thing to do is to somehow convince her to get an abortion. You may need to buy her a few books/pamphlets on the topic before she understands

Really hope this is bait.
If not, you're aware that you're on the spectrum, right? Even if the issue wasn't something as edgy as antinatalism, spending this much energy arguing with your family and sending them spreadsheets to read is just cringey, self-important behavior

Good for you. However, this looks like a losing battle; I'd say it's a better use of your time to tell others about antinatalism rather than putting all your effort into convincing just a few people that already won't listen...

>antinatalist

Why haven't you killed yourself?

>inb4 I can solve more suffering if alive

And thats the argument everyone else has. You're prolonging or creating suffering because it might turn out better in the end.

>hur hur muh epicurean retort.
There's a difference between starting a life and continuing a life. Antinatalism does not entail pro-mortalism.

your view is wrong because there is no basis for preferring pleasure over pain

>Antinatalism does not entail pro-mortalism.
It damn well should, for all its adepts.

10/10. This is how it's done, kids.

How can you spread anti-natalism if you're dead? You clearly don't understand the philosophy, it's not pro-death, just anti-natality.

Do you actively seek out and enjoy being in pain? What would you say to someone who had chronic physical pain?

In every man sleeps a prophet and when he wakes there is a little more evil in the world.
The compulsion to preach is so rooted in us that it emerges from depths unknown tothe instinct for self-preservation. Each of us awaits his moment in order to propose something - anything. He has a voice: that is enough. It costs us ear to be neither deaf nor dumb.
From snobs to scavengers, all expend their criminal generosity, all hand out their formulas for happiness, all try to give directions: life in common thereby becomes intolerable, and life with oneself still more so; if you fail to meddle in other people's business you are so uneasy about your own that you convert your 'self' into a religion, or, apostle in reverse, you deny it altogehter; we are the victims of the universal game...
The abundance of solutions to the aspects of existence is equaled only by their futility. History: a factory of ideals... lunatic mythology, frenzy of hordes and of solitaries... refusal to look reality in the face, mortal thirst for fictions...
- Emil Cioran

what you're doing now is equivalent to asking why the antinatalist hasn't killed himself. continuing life is different than starting a life just like how the tendencies of what humans do is different than those tendencies having a firm basis. If an antinatalist kills himself that isn't a refutation of his point that starting a life is bad. Likewise, in my case seeking pleasure and avoiding pain is not a refutation of my point that there is no basis for preferring pleasure over pain.

>If an antinatalist kills himself that isn't a refutation of his point that starting a life is bad
meant to say doesn't kill himself*

Pleasure is pleasurable and pain is painful. That's the basis for preferring pleasure.

No it isn't. We agree that almost all humans prefer feeling pleasure over feeling pain. But pointing out that is the case doesn't provide an argument for why it is right for us to prefer pleasure over pain.

Haha I love the "idiotic mother drops baby on head" and "father leaves before birth AGAIN"

But omg why does she think I'm attackng her?? This is a joke or no?

Yeah it is. You'll die if you suffer too much pain. The basis for preferring pleasure is in the definition of the word itself.

If you're an antinatalist just don't have any kids. You're not bending to their will, you're asking them to bend to yours jesus christ and look at that list lmao

>The basis for preferring pleasure is in the definition of the word itself.
Nothing you have said shows this to be true. My position is that moral terms can't be naturalized into terms such as pleasure and pain. It seems like you consider the statement that pleasure is good to be analytically true. But you never once tried to support that view. By saying that we die if we suffer too much that doesn't support your view. All that statement does is tell me your position again, that pain is bad.

if you're an antinatalist not only don't have kids, kill yourself.

antinatalism is fedora-tier teen angst philosophy. it's negative utilitarianism--as if utilitarianism wasn't lame enough

This is the most autistic thing I've ever seen.
I can't believe you sent that to your sister.

There is nothing innately terrible about life. Antinatalism is just autistic pessimism.

Probability problems aside, some of this shit...
>birth video leaked to porn site
>humiliating lifetime for baby

Wew lad

Oh look another fucking autist why do you dumbasses not know when to leave the armchair

Antinatalism is the retarded offspring of nihilism. Your opinions are wrong, and it's pretty obvious they come from resentment of your sisters whorishness. Reevaluate your opinion from a non bias place.

Why hasn't OP killed himself yet?

OP be nice to your whore sister, she will have to pay for it in about 5 or 10 years when she has 3+ screaming kids tying her ambitions down for the rest of her life

why are so many people opposed to arguing about morality and value judgements? You don't have to take everything so person or be so surprised that people disagree with you about things you never actually thought about.

>person
personal

He doesn't want to have a debate he just wants them to do what he wants.

I was thinking bait until I saw that spreadsheet. Wtf is wrong with you

How does antinatalism follow from nihilism? Besides being edgy, they don't really have a correlation. Nihilism advocates the absolute absence of any sort of meaning or purpose. Antinatalism on the other hand argues using utilitairianism and concludes that the sufffering in a human life is greater than the pleasure and so on. Which is a value judgement. So it's actually impossible to sincerely hold both stances at the same time.

If one is to be consequent in their antinatalism, one must also reject wholeheartedly all versions of the pleasure principle. Pleasure as necessarily good/suffering as necessarily bad are some among many intuitions upon which the synthesis between moral conviction and ethical theory is based. Antinatalism stands against this synthesis, against intuitivism, and finally against the foremost intuition of philosophy- that children must be born.

Instead of autistic spreadsheets why not introduce the actual source material? Hell, even just showing how antinatalism is the best canditate for theory X in population ethics would suffice. If they're too stupid to get it then there's nothing you can do.

The nature of suffering is an essential part of anti-natalist philosophy

Your family is probably illiterate and not prone to logic or reason. You sound like a retard too.
Your family is doomed, your nephews will be miserable and your parents will die ashamed of your existence.
Good luck.

>baby shaken by uncle
>baby crushed by uncle

fantastic thread OP 10/10

What an awful post.

so THIS... is the power... of antinatalism... WOAH...

lol. good stuff OP.

if you were a real antinatalist you would have committed an hero by now

Maybe if you had a kid, you'd see that all your rationalizing was stupid and that it was worth it.

Unironically the best copypasta of 2017.

Probably because he's a biological organism with an irrational aversion to self-harm that exists at an instinctual level. Like everyone else until life gets so bad that even this basic instinct is overpowered. Recognizing antinatalism as correct isn't something that causes you pain or suffering, it's just an abstract, intellectual stance. It wouldn't make any sense to expect this stance to lead to an increased chance of suicide unless you mistakenly believe people "decide" to live or not live based on pure reason.
Use the asymmetry of pleasure and pain argument, OP.
Most people would agree it's good to put to sleep a dog suffering with cancer. This demonstrates a general collective recognition that eliminating suffering is a good thing. Even people who are opposed to euthanasia for humans generally recognize *why* others would find value in it, it's just that they personally believe the good of suffering ended is outweighed by the bad of violating the sanctity of life (e.g. one anti-euthanasia argument I've seen is by making it an option you're communicating that sick or elderly people are an unwanted burden and devaluing their existence).
Most people would agree it's not bad to refrain from creating a life capable of pleasure. This point might sound debatable at first, but I don't think anyone stays up all night stressed out over all the new lives they're neglecting to create. If you don't create a life it's a total non-issue, not only does nobody exist to suffer from this absence of life, but further no sense of missing out on pleasure exists to make the removal of future pleasure bad. You only want pleasure in the first place if you're already alive, making the argument that life is good for creating the capacity for pleasure as faulty as an argument that getting someone addicted to heroin is good for creating the capacity for relieving heroin withdrawal.
And that's the crux of why the two are asymmetrical. It's easy to argue ending suffering like with euthanasia for a dog spending all his time writhing in pain is a good thing, and it's easy to argue any given moment you spend not creating a new life and thereby not creating a new capacity for wanting pleasure isn't a bad thing (it's neither good nor bad, just neutral). We tend to assume the two would be equal opposites because of some imagined sense of parity / justice, but really pleasure is a deceptive relief of a sense of lacking, not some opposite good force balancing out suffering. The whole scheme of wanting plays into suffering rather than opposing it.

I would have given a serious response if I didn't take a moment to read this first

Nobody refrains from suicide for consciously thought out reasons.
It's an instinct not to harm yourself, and impressive that so many people eventually do harm and kill themselves in spite of that instinct. But I very much doubt the people who commit suicide each year arrived at that act through some sort of logical philosophical stance. That's not how people work.

Not him, but pain also informs us of how much damage we've taken and the strong impact it has on us causes us to learn quickly. It's not just bad, it's necessary for mortal creatures.

What higher ambition can you have than kids, unless you're some kind of genius?

How do you know that people who commit suicide didn't do it for rational reasons? You can set up a few presuppositions to get you there rationally.

You don't need to be a genius to dedicate yourself to a craft, which would be a higher ambition than spawning brood.

I think you're underestimating raising children user. It's hard for sure, but also wonderful and more fulfilling than trying to move up in a career for most people. Why do you have such a negative view of children?

>baby born black (not shocking)
>baby crushed by uncle
>birth video leaked to porn website

We have reached peak autism

I'm not making an argument that this is definitely the case every single time with 0% uncertainty and can't be proven wrong given enough time and sophistry. I'm honestly surprised anyone would seriously argue people kill themselves for consciously determined rational conclusions (a lot of people *implicitly* assume this, but not many people explicitly argue it).
But to give you a specific reason for why you might believe this to be true if you're skeptical, I'd point to the same set of circumstances which brought this topic up in the first place: people rhetorically asking why an antinatalist doesn't just kill themselves.
And the fact most of the people who hold on an abstract level that life isn't worth living don't kill themselves is explained very neatly with the reminder that we all possess a powerful instinctual aversion to self-harm. And no matter what we might recognize in terms of reason, this aversion exists prior to reason.
As for why anyone still commits suicide then, it's not in my opinion that they've thought their way through overpowering this aversion, but rather that one or more equally instinctual / irrational feelings have worked them over to this course of action.
David Foster Wallace explained this phenomenon in terms of an analogy with people jumping out of a tall burning building. He pointed out that these people aren't any less averse to the negative feelings associated with falling to your death but instead that the fire becomes an even more powerful negative motivator.
I'd also point out there would probably be a lot more suicides if merely coming up with a logical understanding that life isn't worth living were enough to motivate you to end your life. There are a lot more people alive today who would agree to life not being worth living than there are people who've killed themselves this past year. Just reaching that intellectual conclusion isn't in itself a motivating force greater than the instinct against self-harm. Even in the successfully suicidal who do cite an intellectual reason for killing themselves, I would argue something was off with them at a biological level for them to be able to casually override the anti- self harm instinct (if they actually did just kill themselves after coming to an intellectual conclusion and had no discomfort / suffering / anxiety motivating them otherwise), like a variation on those kids born without the ability to feel pain who accidentally bite through their tongues or destroy an eyeball from lack of noxious instincts giving them a sense of boundaries for what they should or shouldn't do with their bodies.

Insects lay eggs too. Reproducing is on par with molting or digestion as far as "highness" of ambitions go. At least if you're like Jiro and dedicate your life to making $300 fish and rice balls you're pursuing an ideal, like approaching the perfect Form of sushi as the prototypical basis for all lesser imperfect instances of real world sushi that participate in it.

Antinatalism is autism.

What I was trying to get at is that people who commit suicide (or everyone) are rationally thinking, but their presuppositions are emotionally / experientially founded. You can probably rationally get to suicide with certain assumptions about life.

Reminder Jiro has a son.

Epic, got 'em :DD

I've already seen this post a month ago

It's true and deep down you know it.

Completely irrelevant since I never said not to have children, I only defended the claim dedicating yourself to a craft was a "higher ambition" than having children.

You can argue these things through, but experience speaks differently user. I have a niece and a nephew, and although they are certainly a handful at times, they are an immense joy. Nearly everything they do is cute beyond belief and it's a relationship that I can shape and foster. A relationship with a child is likely to be more satisfying to most people than just pursuing their career.

It's not on the archive

Not really

You're wrong, and deep down you know it.

This is the perfect end to the year. Thanks OP

Whether they're a handful or not has nothing to do with this topic. Having children can be the easiest thing in the world or the hardest thing and it wouldn't change the point that dedicating yourself to a craft is a "higher ambition" than having children (using quotes because I didn't come up with that phrase myself and am not sure I would phrase it that way personally, but I don't have any alternative phrasings in mind right now to substitute for it).

Also I don't know that I agree with your use of the word "career."
A craft isn't necessarily a career. You can make a living off of a craft, but the financial logistics / profitability of using the craft in that way aren't the same thing as the craft itself.

PASTA
A
S
T
A

posts like this make me realise im probably not as autistic as i think

You related having children to insects laying eggs, which is clearly wrong, and then stated that a craft was better than doing that. If have children wasn't more fulfilling than pursuing a craft why would people sacrifice their work to have and raise kids? I don't buy that biology is solely at work, since humans can go against their biology.

Why don't antinatalists bomb maternity wards? Surely it'll lead to the most beneficial outcome for us all.

idc ive seen this "beta antinatalist tries to convince family for some fucking reason" bullshit

Why do natalists constantly make these silly arguments?

It is the most effective way of spreading antinatalism, right? Just to kill the babies as they're born.

>You related having children to insects laying eggs, which is clearly wrong
How is that wrong? That's not even really an analogy, it's just an actual equivalent process. Insects literally do reproduce just like people do, does it "not count" because you don't like insects?
>I don't buy that biology is solely at work, since humans can go against their biology.
It depends on what you mean exactly by "go against their biology."
Can an injured person force themselves to sit still in a way that an injured horse couldn't?
Sure, that's a distinct advantage to dealing with human patients instead of non-human animal patients.
But can a normally functioning person casually slice off each of their fingers with a paper cutter?
Probably not.
Other things people do on a regular basis almost certainly more because of biology than out of some non-biological preference would be eating food, drinking, taking shits, sleeping, and having sex. You have some degree of wiggle room outside of how a non-human animal would approach these activities e.g. you can plan in advance to have a certain kind of food available in your refrigerator for meals next week and you can use contraceptives to have sex for pleasure minus functionality, but in broad strokes biology isn't anywhere close to negligible in our lives.
You cannot honestly believe the majority of parents consciously decided to have children for non-biological reasons. That is a completely ridiculous premise. Reproduction is a pretty fucking old biological process, and I'm pretty sure the reason people have children with a similar enough frequency to other non-human apes having children is way, way, way more because of biology than any other factor.

>most effective
Nope. You could, through non-violent means and 100% within the realm of real world possibility, work towards large populations being sterilized e.g. many prisons practice sterilization or at least offer it in exchange for reduced sentencing, and Israel sterilized a large number of Africans as part of their immigration process.
If you could successfully persuade the right state authorities, you could even reach a point where it becomes a legal course of action to add sterilants to staple foods and the water supply of third world countries, preventing billions of unfortunate lives within as little time as a single human lifespan (and far more than that if you start counting all the offspring of the offspring of the offspring etc. that you prevented).
Meanwhile bombing a maternity ward would get you what, 100 lives prevented tops? And it wouldn't even count as prevention since they will already be alive at that point, so you'll be creating (a brief, but real) suffering for those infants before they die.

And if you can't convince anyone? What if they see you as a raving lunatic? What then?

People on Veeky Forums are probably much more intelligent and successfull than op's sheltered white trash family tho desu

I'm pretty sure you have a much greater risk of being seen as mentally ill if you try to go through with your plan of bombing a maternity ward.

Also there's a precedent for sterilization as an acceptable measure. People might find it objectionable, but I don't think it would qualify as evidence of mental illness merely to bring up sterilization as a topic. Obama's science adviser at least considered the logistics of adding sterilants to staple foods and water (though he didn't explicitly advocate for doing so).
ia601506.us.archive.org/2/items/Ecoscience_17/JohnHoldren-Ecoscience.pdf
>Adding a sterilant to drinking water or staple foods is a suggestion that seems to horrify people more than most proposals for involuntary fertility control. Indeed, this would pose some very difficult political, legal, and social questions, to say nothing of the technical problems. No such sterilant exists today, nor does one appear to be under development. To be acceptable, such a substance would have to meet some rather stiff requirements: it must be uniformly effective, despite widely varying doses received by individuals, and despite varying degrees of fertility and sensitivity among individuals; it must be free of dangerous or unpleasant side effects; and it must have no effect on members of the opposite sex, children, old people, pets, or livestock.
And of course Israel just blatantly sterilized all its African immigrants lol:
forbes.com/sites/eliseknutsen/2013/01/28/israel-foribly-injected-african-immigrant-women-with-birth-control/
>In the past decade, the birth rate among Ethiopian-Israelis has declined by at least 20 percent. Advocacy groups now claim this decline is the result of a birth control regimen forced upon Ethiopian immigrant women.
And prisons have a long history of sterilizing convicts, often without consent:
pbs.org/independentlens/blog/unwanted-sterilization-and-eugenics-programs-in-the-united-states/
Still happens into the present day too:
rt.com/usa/167660-california-illegal-sterilization-women/
>Four California prisons illegally sterilized 39 women over a six-year period, a damning new report by the California State Auditor reveals.
>Of the 144 inmates who underwent bilateral tubal ligations, commonly referred to as having your tubes tied, from fiscal years 2005-06 to 2012-13, auditors found nearly one-third were performed without lawful consent.

Antinatalism is false

If it were "false" euthanasia and contraceptives wouldn't exist.

There's a difference between not wanting a child under specific circumstances and not wanting any children ever.
Contraceptives are so you don't get AIDs you retard.

There is a huge difference between "some lives should not be" and "no lives should be".