Antinatallism

...

>why do you assume that human existence is inherently good and worth perpetuating?
The fact that you self-perpetuate your exist in order to post that drivel here rather than taking your "beliefs" to their logical conclusion and cutting your own throat.

>b-but it's hard...
>I'm scared to die....
Someone finds the strength to put their money where their mouth is every 40 seconds, take the literal plunge and contribute to the statistic pussy.

if life is meaningless, why do i care if we go on? Youre going to have to try harder than that

Simply that you're a deadend and your rhetoric is the memetic equivalent of a dose of a gamma radiation.

This is the the most pretentious thing I have ever read. Congratulations

Anime website faggot.
If you don't like it take your garbage thread to Reddit.

>if life is meaningless, why do i care if we go on?
I don't believe life is meaningless.

What is the meaning of life then?

>tfw antinatalist misanthrope

pessimism =/= nihilism

If your message is that life is bad you're unambiguously intending to espouse an objective value system. In fact its not even subject to any sort of dynamic contextualization and therefore even especially objective as a form of morality.

>rather than taking your "beliefs" to their logical conclusion
why do people always say this when they speak against anti-natalism? Why is the only belief that has to stand up to the "its ultimate extreme is suicide so its wrong" test?

Tell me user, do you pay taxes? Do you think paying taxes is ok? If so then you've admitted that its ok for the state to force you under pain of kidnapping and imprisonment to give them your money. So if you think that's ok then why not take it to its ultimate extreme conclusion where the state takes all your private property and kills you if you refuse? If you pay your taxes you've already said its ok for the state to steal your money, so what's the difference right?

I don't know what your religion is so I can't tell you.

>muh genes

And that is important why?

>Life is awful and we'd be better off dead...
>WHOA, WHOA, SLOW DOWN I DIDN'T MEAN ME, I WAS JUST TRYING TO SOUND DEEP

It's not theft.
Social contract motherfucker.

Your genes aren't remotely important to me, feel free position your gonads in front of an active emitter of ionizing radiation at any time.

>the conclusion is kill yourself

Speaking personally not only am I a "spiritual" antinatalist, I only became an antinatalist after reflecting on the idea of the soul, eschatology and the paranormal in general. My attitude is that if I would say "what if anything could happen to you." you wouldn't be rejoicing because that idea of vulnerability to the unknown and unknowable is intrinsically terrifying. If we were just dealing with some limited hedonic utility I'd probably say have at it.

>Life is awful
It isn't Most anti-natalists usually are depressive losers, virgins, people with no jobs, family, etc. And I mean, like, 99% of them. Life is great. You can do heroine, have sex, party, drive Ferraris, fuck whores on a yacht, anything you want really. Just because a few people have it bad doesn't mean everyone should stop breeding. It's extremely selfish on your part to try to put down other people's fulfillment just because you're a loser who failed at life.
Next time you feel depressed take your shit to instead of embarrassing yourself on Veeky Forums.

>tfw antinatalist philanthrope

People don't deserve this shit to be honest.

t. Sheldon Bazooper

>literally the first post in the thread in support of antinatalism revolves around how much life sucks and strongly implies introducing new life into this is immoral
>somehow this makes ME the depressed and miserable one.

Enjoy your intellectually inconsistent hedonism I guess bro, I don't know what to tell you.

Exterminationism is a more sensible policy.

Preserve your own kind while wiping out the rapidly multiplying third-world hordes.

>people should be trusted based on their biases informed by personal life experience

literally kys

>My attitude is that if I would say "what if anything could happen to you." you wouldn't be rejoicing because that idea of vulnerability to the unknown and unknowable is intrinsically terrifying. If we were just dealing with some limited hedonic utility I'd probably say have at it.
Fair enough, I however believe that there are hard limits on what can plausibly happen to a person, and while the uncertainty of life is indeed terrifying, I believe that state of terror is better than the alternative as it is at least something rather than nothing, and I find the idea of NOTHING even more terrifying.

I can understand pain, I can understand pleasure.
I can't understand nothing.

This, if you have children you are a sociopath.

So you are saying that if all the antinatalists killed themselves you would accept the premises of antinatalism? I suspect its more like "ergh, stop saying thing I don't like and kill yourself so I don't have to listen to you anymore." Which is fetus-tier immaturity.

>So you are saying that if all the antinatalists killed themselves you would accept the premises of antinatalism?
No, but I would certainly cease to consider it self-refuting as I do now.
If someone isn't getting high on their own supply, odds are it's not in your interest to get high on it either. Sort of like how no one trusts a skinny cook, if you permit me to pile on another cliche.

>its selfish to prevent me from generating a whole new person

I'm sure its also selfish to prevent you from taking someone else's money you found lying around somewhere.

>literally textbook ad hominem

topjej

I'm getting a serious false flag vibe from this post. I mean heroine? Seriously

1/10 weak bait

How is pointing out blatant hypocrisy "text-book ad hominem"?

because the very definition of ad hominem is dismissing an argument on the basis that the person putting it forward doesn't act according to it. Hypocrisy involves illegitmately attacking people's character not putting out arguments for consideration in the context of a conversation or debate.

>I mean, having children is selfish.
>selfish
fuck I hate this board

>I hate this board because this one guy expressed a fringe view

Grow some thicker skin pal

See You are giving birth to someone who cannot consent to being born. As if the mere point of consent was not enough, we also live in a terrible world. There is murder, rape, theft, disease, war, poverty, misery, suffering. And all of which is meaningless. And that's assuming a purely non religious point of view. If you are Christian, then the right thing to do is not to give birth to souls because it means they can go to Hell, as most people who are born go to Hell.

but age of accountability tho

[Sin Laundering Intensifies]

Explain this heresy

>hurr durr my son is "insert age here" so now him going to hell for eternity is his problem

Although the idea of active participants moving into the roles of blameless bystanders is a recurring theme in the Abrahamic faiths.

"I am innocent of this man's blood"
-Pontius Pilate

so if you think the state should take some of your money for the public good why shouldn't it take all of your money and provide for you entirely?

where did you get any of that from what I said?

Just because life isn't worth living for doesn't mean that death is worth dying for.

Why is being a "deadend" a bad thing? Is it really that much better to just keep going through the same cycle, life after life, without anything ever changing?

>I have constitutional weakness that causes me suffering and I wish to sentimentalize it and spread it to others.

...

Yes pretty much and unironically

>Jordan Peterson
>people actually fund this guy a six figure salary on Patreon

>we should bring human existence to an end
your argument:
>why doesn't anyone realize that this is a terrible idea because it would bring human existence to an end?

idiot

>The fact that you self-perpetuate your exist in order to post that drivel here rather than taking your "beliefs" to their logical conclusion and cutting your own throat.

it's like saying if you don't spend your entire life whipping yourself before god in a cave or some shit then you aren't a true christain

the real question is,

why does the mere suggestion of antinatalism make cucks and losers so rabidly angry?

it's like they're stupid babies who just can't deal with people having different beliefs and values to them

it's honestly pretty embarassing

Because they're own personal accomplishments are so pathetic and non-existant that they think the only way to "win" in life is to spawn an equally pathetic, loser child as though that proves anything. It's nigger-tier logic and the reason why third-world countries are so terrible.

please expain the necessary relation between

1. we ought not bring children into the world

and

2. we ought kill ourselves

I'm waiting.

their*

inb4 this typo invalidates the validity of my post

I'm an antinatalist and I can't deal with Calvinists or Nietzschwits so it cuts both ways to be fair.

The argument goes both ways though

>Calvinists

Which aspect of their doctrine pisses you off the most?

I missed the point where the weaboo mentioned atheism.

His antinatalism stance is an entirely spiritual position, supposing that unborn spirits are somehow "forced" into being born, and would be better off, if left in their immaterial realm.

It also flies in the face of genetic destiny, and even the basic biological functionality of life that atheists tend to tout so heavily.

It's kind of the ultimate example of feels > reals that atheists decry so much, and are always accusing the theists of.

At least, beyond the practical, "anything that makes the freeways move faster" aspect.

Not him, but collectively, one does rather lead to the other, when taken to its ultimate extreme.

The election. Salvation is a lottery? I've never heard of anything as cynical as not going to burn for eternity being a raffle.

Bunch of losers who won't reproduce anyway, bitter and want to bring everyone else down with them. There is no were else that we know of in this universe let alone the galaxy were life exists. The chance of our existence was close to 0 in this extremely hostile universe, and even we won't last forever. Life is a lot like women, cruel but beautiful. It's better to have it and spread it is then not to.

Literally nothing you said wasn't entirely emotionally motivated

>things that are improbable can't be bad
>rare diseases aren't a thing

This is your brain on life

1. Life is bad. I know from personal experience.
2. I love my hypothetical children.
3. I wouldn't cause life on them, since I know its bad.

I love my hypothetical children too much to make them exist, such existence is cruel and painful.

great explanation buddy, top notch

>His antinatalism stance is an entirely spiritual position, supposing that unborn spirits are somehow "forced" into being born, and would be better off, if left in their immaterial realm.

if this bothers you, you can frame the argument in different ways other than this

for example you could just we ought minimise the amount of suffering in the world, and having a child would increase the amount, so we should not have children

the debate doesn't have to be framed around consent from non-existent 'children'

>It also flies in the face of genetic destiny, and even the basic biological functionality of life that atheists tend to tout so heavily.

evolution has no teleos. you don't understand the theory

>genetic destiny

lol

It actually isn't a symmetrical situation. The absence of suffering through not living is generally accepted as a good thing hence why you put your dog to sleep when he gets cancer. The absence of pleasure through not living isn't a bad thing though. Why? Because you only want pleasure to begin with if you exist. Not existing eliminates your craving for pleasure.

>The absence of suffering through not living is generally accepted as a good thing

for whom?

This chart is wrong.

And historically projections like this were always incorrect. Stop posting it or at least tells us where it's from.

>white people would rather abort their babies to prevent climate change
>white people would also rather pay for Mudmad Shanequisha Tyrone Rajput 20 kids

D A M A G E D

In the example of putting the dog with cancer to sleep, the dog. Part of the motivation might be that the owner wants to make himself feel better by not watching the dog suffer anymore, but if that were the only concern then he could just as easily abandon the dog instead. The act of euthanasia is understood to be for the benefit of the recipient because it ends their suffering. Unlike with the presence of pleasure where you need to be alive to crave it in the first place, the *absence* of suffering is a benefit that can be had through the ending of life because it's a negative / subtractive benefit rather than a positive / additive one. Hence the asymmetry.

>white people constantly try to prevent access to birth control and access to abortions
>white people managed to convince an entire nation that birth control is evil

Huh, I guess you're right.

>because the very definition of ad hominem is dismissing an argument on the basis that the person putting it forward doesn't act according to it.

What on earth are you talking about, that's not true at all.

Kill yourself

I'm a depressed shitcunt and even I think it's retarded. Preach antinatalism to the indians/chinese breeding like rabbits.

Antinatalism implicitly rests it's argument on the idea that life is worthless. Yet antinatalists continue to hold onto this worthless thing contrary to their own arguments.

You genuinely don't see how that disrupts the antinatalist argument derived from human suffering?

There's nothing quite like a guy who thinks life is meaningless attempting to assert his superiority by mocking people who llive meaningless lives.

>Antinatalism implicitly rests it's argument on the idea that life is worthless
That's not true. It's the position that creating new lives is more of a harm than a good. Burglary by analogy isn't worthless, it's just that the worth comes at the cost of a greater harm.

I believe in it but I'm getting kids anyway.

> anti-natalism
> not existential nihilism

you got mixed up there bud

>You are giving birth to someone who cannot consent to being born.
They can't consent to not being born either so that kind of screws up any attempt at basing your argument on consent.

>As if the mere point of consent was not enough, we also live in a terrible world
Yes a world so terrible you refuse to leave it, how awful. You must be real fun at parties.

>If you are Christian, then the right thing to do is not to give birth to souls because it means they can go to Hell, as most people who are born go to Hell.
>"I'm so terrified of my children going to hell that I would deny them the ability to go to heaven."
Mothers who raise their sons this way produce serial killers and social rejects.

>Everyone born will turn out to be depressed autistic faggots like me!

>They can't consent to not being born
???
Do you need to consent to not have sex? Do you need to consent to not have your credit card charged? I don't think that's how consent works.

>Part of the motivation might be that the owner wants to make himself feel better by not watching the dog suffer anymore, but if that were the only concern then he could just as easily abandon the dog instead.
Some owners do.

Furthermore you do realize your argument using euthanasia justifies involuntarily euthanizing people who you subjectively feel are suffering right?
Oh and by the way I don't remember the owner ever asking for the dog's consent, something which I thought was a big deal to antinatalists....

It's a philosophical dead end. It's on par with solipsism.

Isn't it strange how antinatalists in the "life is suffering" camp haven't killed themselves?

It's like life is preferable to non existence or something

Really makes you think

How are you going to ask the dog for consent? That seems like a pretty nonsensical issue to try to argue about. If you can find a way to read a dog's mind to get consent I wouldn't object to doing that.

Life isn't preferable to nonexistence even if you aren't an antinatalist. Nonexistence is completely free of any suffering. People don't kill themselves because they have instinctual deterrents, not because nonexistence itself is unpleasant.