Sex with contraception=degenerate

Again, anything that does not revolve around eating and sleeping can be seen as a waste of time. I don't suggest extreme libido but christian doctrine makes it clear that having a positive sex life is fine.

"Positive sex life" that isn't open to children isn't a positive sex life. It's a negative sex life.

I never said you can't have children but that pleasure for sex is perfectly fine so as long as you fulfill the obligatory duties of a marriage (children).

How do you define the right amount of children? 1? 3?

Things I don't like and/or am jealous of other people having = degeneracy

>Muh ivil wimin...
>Muh serious male saviours...
Men like you is what turns women into Lesbians...

Craving for attention is what turns women into lesbians

Depends. Ideally I'd say 3 but it could change based on your economic and social standing.

5 is a solid minimum.

5 is too much from where I'm from but that seems right for populations with low birth rates.

No...its literally losers.
If they are gonna multiply a losers life, they might as well burn away in fun!

Degeneracy is a real philosophical concept that has been corrupted by /pol/.

Men already control most politics, business, militaries, sport, entertainment, crime, religion etc. Apparently one sphere of life not being male dominated is too much. The reason women seem in control of sex is because they're afraid of giving it out willingly due to pregnancy, STDs, being labelled a slut or abuse from the wrong guy. Straight men don't have to worry about these things to the same degree straight women do. They're typically shame dfor not having sex (is being a virgin) instead, which leads to fucktards like Elliot Rodger getting giant persecution complexes because of it and trying to justify the murder of random people. Attacking gender roles is the only way to remove thus stigma that harms both sexes.

>I'm not saying rape is okay

Not directly, but it seems like the logical conclusion of your victim logic.

I wish /r9k/ and /pol/ would fuck off Veeky Forums. Calling random shit degenerate because you get a boner from being as contrarian and edgy as possible is not philosophy.

>OP citing Nietzsche

Some wannabe composer that was ridiculously obfuscatory and contradictory (even for pre-20th century standards) is not the grand benchmark for all philosophy. He has impressive prose and passionate sentiment, sure, but if he weren't allied with the right, you'd probably deride this as muh feels.

t. roastie

/pol/ are degenerates in denial.

The population can't perpetually rise. It's not sustainable or desirable, since increased population density directly leads to more crime, pollution, stress, etc. This retarded logic leads to all countries trying to outcompete each other until we'll all become crowded shitholes like China and India.

Lowering birth rates naturally occurs with higher standards of living in white and nonwhite countries (like Japan), which is why Europe had high birth rates too before mass urbanization. You can say that white people are a global minority but so is every race, even East Asians. In fact white people are tge second most populous race on Earth. It's meaningless alarmist bullshit.I come from a devout Catholic family where all the women had 7+ kids, and they're fucking miserable and the kids grew up poor as shit. Emulating niggers is not the answer.

>meme arguments

Go back to /pol/ if you want to spout endless copypasta replies for your faggy little right wing clubhouse. Veeky Forums is for actual discussion.

This, they probably have at least 10 cuckold threads a day.

Yeah. On the other hand, you need higher birth rates to instill more generations unless you want to end up like Japan where there are more elderly people than not, possibly changing economy with job shortages and even messing with elections. That actually provides an argument for contraception since the reason why the third world is so densely packed is because they have shit sex education and don't know how to use a condom.

I'm from a Catholic family where everyone had 14 kids and while I feel bad for the mothers all 1400 of us descendants went to college.

>Nietzsche denounced degenerate behaviour

Nope.

>The danger in these strong communities, founded on similar, steadfast individual members, is an increasing, inherited stupidity, which follows all stability like a shadow. In such communities, spiritual progress depends on those individuals who are less bound, much less certain, and morally weaker; they are men who try new things, and many different things. Because of their weakness, countless such men are destroyed without having much visible effect; but in general, especially if they have descendants, they loosen things up, and, from time to time, deliver a wound to the stable element of a community. Precisely at this wounded, weakened place, the common body is inoculated, so to speak, with something new; however, the community's overall strength, has to be great enough to take this new thing into its bloodstream and assimilate it. Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it.
Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest1 does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race.

There's a difference between have 10 children when you're poor, and having AT LEAST replacement rates.

Japan and several European countries don't even have replacement rates, which means their countries actually will die in the near future, unless of course they open their countries to immigrants, which I suspect is what certain people want.

>Attacking gender roles is the only way to remove thus stigma that harms both sexes.
Fuck THAT.
Men control the aspects of life they do for a reason.
Women control the aspects of life they do for a reason.
Trying to fuck with and rework the basic underpinnings of the human species is like trying to conduct brain-surgery on yourself with a pair of mirrors. It's not going to end well for anyone involved.

>Japan and several European countries don't even have replacement rates, which means their countries actually will die in the near future
What a load of nonsense.

>People are mortal
>If you don't make more people then all of them will eventually die
>"What a load of nonsense"

Okay champ

>which I suspect is what certain people want
Is this how you guys dodge the mods by not saying jews anymore?
pathetic

How about actually responding to my post about the topic at hand instead of projecting your /pol/ boogeyman everywhere?

Obviously it's not a problem for you that several European nations won't exist in a 100 years, but is for me.

>an abomination not sanctioned by nature
it literally happens in nature

>I'm not saying rape is okay
then what are you saying

Cool. Move to Saudi Arabia then, faggot

what's wrong with immigration, you get able bodied intelligent adults without having to do the work of investing decades into their education

>several European nations won't exist in a 100 years
now that's an absolute load of nonsense, many countries will be very different in 100 years but they wont be fucking gone

think about how different Europe was 100 years ago, an entire generation of french brits and russians the same age as you were called upon to kill an entire generation of germans the same age as them, and you.

The world won't stand still, and that's not a bad thing.

Because every study done on immigration in my country shows that immigrants never reach the same level as natives in terms of employment and education, and commit more crime.

Now whether that is the fault of the immigrants themselves or the host nation, honestly is irrelevant to me, because the problem exists, and it apparently never goes away completely.

>It wastes your generative male energies on a trifle
kinda like posting on Veeky Forums

You obviously lack reading comprehension.

Where do you think Japan will be in 100 years if nobody aged 18-30 has children today?

Their own estimates is that they will go from 120 million down to 70 million by 2050.

>People are not having children now
>This means they never will again.
I bet when you look at this chart you actually think Africa will achieve the population level it is projected to reach in 2100.

>This means they never will again.

What does this mean exactly?

You said yourself that not having many children is a consequence of economic situations, which I agree with in part, but assuming they will have plenty of children again must mean you believe that Europe will become a poor shithole again sometime in the future.

>1.5 children per woman
>this happens for about three generations
>120,000,000 * ((1.5/2)^3) = 50,625,000

So in other words, there will be 50 million or so little niplings running around killing whales and shit.

This is of course assuming that their social security system doesn't collapse under the strain of too many dependents and not enough workers.

If that happens, you can expect birth rates to rebound as having children becomes a more viable retirement plan than relying on a pension.

There's a bit of a difference between people slaughtering each other as they always have done and people being demographically replaced bro.

Japan barely has a social security system, and they still barely have babies.

sounds like a problem with your country, considering it works so well for us here in America

We have the best and brightest from the whole world beating down the door to get in. (I'm talking about legal immigration of course, illegal is a separate issue)

also I'd be quite interested to see those studies you mentioned

Isn't there a fairly large private sector pension system?

I'm assuming that if old people end up on the streets begging or picking up cans, the people who pass said begging old people will be a lot more interested in being fruitful and multiplying.

This is of course, implying that the Japanese don't build robots to take care of their elderly, and that they remain too isolationist to import Filipina nursemaids like everyone else.

most likely they'll be forced to abandon their xenophobia and accept mass immigration of healthcare professionals from other east asian nations

>ww1 was just another war
is that really what you just said?

>but assuming they will have plenty of children again must mean you believe that Europe will become a poor shithole again sometime in the future.
Yeah pretty much.
Either the population growth/economic growth ponzi scheme collapses, or their society tears itself apart due to cultural stresses coming from importing millions of hostile foreigners but either way the good times won't last forever.

Yes that's really what I just said.
Do you have any idea how many people died in the Thirty Years war?

&humanities

as I understand it there are a few reasons for such a low fertility rate

-the cost of living is just too fucking high to support a family of more than one kid
-there is a very real glass ceiling for women who left the workforce for a few years to take care of their kid then try to return to work, you basically have to choose between a career and a family
-salarymen are expected to work insane hours and then drink with their coworkers leaving little time for family
-relatively few elderly japanese live in the cities as its too expensive on a pensioner's income, so grandparents are often not in the picture to help in the raising of kids

>Wanting your country to be for your ethnic group must necessarily mean you hate foreigners or foreign cultures

wew

not nearly as many as died in ww1

>ww1 was just another war because death counts are the only thing interesting about a war and there have been other wars with high death counts
so you think there's absolutely nothing noteworthy about a century of technological innovation being used to create human misery on a scale never before imaginable?

Have you ever lived in Japan, have you ever even been there? The hatred they have for other east asians is absolutely insane.

The solution to their problem of a shrinking workforce is staring them right in the face but loosening immigration law is unthinkable simply because of how much they hate foreigners and foreign cultures.

>The solution is staring them right in the face!
>Invite 2 million Syrians that start allahu akbar'ing shit up

I think they are paying attention to what is happening everywhere else frankly.

He means skilled immigration from Korea and China, not Syrians.

What a ridiculous false equivalency, loosening immigration laws in a controlled way to get more quality labor for key sectors that are critically understaffed (like nursing) is not at all the same as allowing a large group of undocumented refugees and migrants who have little to off your country to come in a completely uncontrolled and chaotic manner.

>The war ranks with the worst famines and plagues as the greatest medical catastrophe in modern European history.[72][73] Lacking good census information, historians have extrapolated the experience of well-studied regions.[74] John Theibault agrees with the conclusions in Günther Franz's Der Dreissigjährige Krieg und das Deutsche Volk (1940), that population losses were great but varied regionally (ranging as high as 50%) and says his estimates are the best available.[75] The war killed soldiers and civilians directly, caused famines, destroyed livelihoods, disrupted commerce, postponed marriages and childbirth, and forced large numbers of people to relocate. The reduction of population in the German states was typically 25% to 40%.[76] Some regions were affected much more than others.[77] For example, Württemberg lost three-quarters of its population during the war.[78] In the territory of Brandenburg, the losses had amounted to half, while in some areas, an estimated two-thirds of the population died.[79] The male population of the German states was reduced by almost half.[80] The population of the Czech lands declined by a third due to war, disease, famine, and the expulsion of Protestant Czechs.[81][82] Much of the destruction of civilian lives and property was caused by the cruelty and greed of mercenary soldiers.[83] Villages were especially easy prey to the marauding armies. Those that survived, like the small village of Drais near Mainz, would take almost a hundred years to recover. The Swedish armies alone may have destroyed up to 2,000 castles, 18,000 villages, and 1,500 towns in Germany, one-third of all German towns

WW1 was awful but it just doesn't compare.

Of course it's not the same thing, but there's a reason they say no to almost all of it, because they're probably afraid of demographic changes.

Which they should be honestly. I mean, just look at what Sweden is doing.

>le sweden
real life and /pol/ memes are not the same thing you know

and way to prove my point, the solution is right in front of them, but they refuse to accept it and instead are willing to watch their country collapse because omg scary foreigners

Who said it wasn't noteworthy?
The point is that exact same technology that allowed the mass-production of misery also allowed a population large enough to sustain it. WW1 was awful but war is usually awful.

>human misery on a scale never before imaginable
I think you underestimate not only the imagination but the potential of pre-20th century man. I mean you realize that you're basically claiming that WW1 provoked a more miserable experience than having your city razed by the Mongols right? Sure living in shit surrounded by the dead and experiencing shell bombardment is awful but do you REALLY think it's that much of a worse experience than essentially living through the end of the world as everyone you've ever known is systematically raped and murdered before your eyes?

nice arab propaganda you've got there, the mongols were an empire of peace

>/pol/memes
>Sweden took 160000 refugees in 2016
>This is the equivalent of the U.S taking in 4.6 million

>implying that wouldn't cause a civil war in the U.S if it ever happened.

Having your country collapse is hell of a lot better in the long term than importing an ethnic minority that will now have to be part of your country FOREVER (barring ethnic cleansing), with all the inherent social tensons that come along with that.

i cant even imagine the skill level of some of the veterans that fought in that war

no it most certainly wouldn't since we've taken in far more

From 1900-1910 the US accepted over 9 million immigrants with a population of 76 million. So why wasn't there a civil war?

How do you know, Japan's impending collapse is something totally unprecedented in modern history, who knows what kind of havoc it will create.

>9 million in 10 years is the same as 4.6 million in a year

in practical terms its not much different

>How do you know, Japan's impending collapse is something totally unprecedented in modern history, who knows what kind of havoc it will create.
The kind that does not end with ethnic cleansing, that's all anyone needs to know.

>there's no practical difference between 9 million and 46 million
wew

or they could just go the american route, and you know, not kill eachother

>reading comprehension

You're aware our country is essentially built on top of civil war mausoleum, on top of a haunted plantation, on top of a mass grave of Loyalists, on top of an Indian burial ground right?

>arithmetic comprehension

T. Virgin

Friendly reminder that aging populations will lead to the collapse of: Russia, Germany, Italy, Japan, and several other states because modern men are too cucked to reproduce.

stratfor.com/weekly/population-decline-and-great-economic-reversal

>but if he weren't allied with the right

You mean if the right hadn't pretended he was their guy?

I don't think any of those are a fair comparison to what I was referring to, American slavery and American settler expansion into indian territory are quite separate issues to modern controlled immigration creating social disunity.

I think you're intentionally missing my point now. I said in practical terms they're not much different because with such a massive migration of people as the US saw in the first decade of the 20th century you have all the issues present in one that's just a bit more massive. The development of large new subcultures based on the old country, workers being displaced because the new immigrants will undercut them in wages, massive urban overpopulation. Yet America got through it with barely a scratch.

Oh look it's a virgin tries to justify his virginity by attempting a moral high ground thread

ahah its a virgin projects his insecurities onto others joke!

>American slavery and American settler expansion into indian territory are quite separate issues to modern controlled immigration creating social disunity.
No they aren't, as they demonstrate that America is not based on everyone getting along an accepting each other's differences, and the fact we've sort of been able to hold it together for a few decades (if you ignore the dynamic of crime serving as a proxy for ethnic cleansing), does not mean that America has somehow managed to crack the code of handling ethnic tensions within a society in the long term.

Whatever user. I wish your legendary wit translated to you getting the ladies, but some things just aren't meant to be

you're seriously underestimating american exceptionalism

we integrated the Irish, that means we can do literally anything

> I said in practical terms they're not much different because with such a massive migration of people as the US saw in the first decade of the 20th century you have all the issues present in one that's just a bit more massive.
>it's just a bit more massive
>there's no difference in practical terms

No, you're underestimating the benefit of having an entire continent to white flight across when the Irish move into town.

regardless of your valid point. The deppresing reality of the world and develping nations with high birthrates is that even if education of controception is taught and encouraged it will prove to be completely ineffective as recent history has demontrasted.

Humans unknowingly are literally betrayed by there own evolutionary instincts to reproduce.

masturbation is the least degenerate of sexual behaviors

The same could even be argued for homosexuality

>arguments from nature
>sex for pleasure doesn't exist in nature.

Even by your own retarded logic, you are a retard.

>pleasure isn't an evolutionary adaptation to increase sexual reproduction

Get a load of this dunderhead lmao

>Japan
>Cucked

Mostly agreed.

Wait till marriage.

No jerkin. No rubbers, no pills, no problems.

Big strong kids, loving and obedient wife, pay your taxes, go to church, enjoy the American dream already!

>not sanctioned by nature
Dolphins
Bonobos
Ducks

All are non-human animals having sex for pleasure in nature.