I can't bring myself to force a baby into this wicked world :^)

Reddit reddit reddit

God, you are brain dead.

Why should I care about that?

I mean, it looks like there's a nearly direct correlation between people having lots of kids and their country being a complete shithole.

Women just wanna ride the cock carousel indefinitely and having a baby stretches out their fuckhole and decreases their sexual value.

So you don't want someone who actually cares about you visiting you and calling you in your old age, instead of just sitting in some dusty chair all alone.

Most people who say that say it because they see life as a series of pleasant distractions from the fact that they are going to die.

>So you don't want someone who actually cares about you visiting you and calling you in your old age

I'll have a computer, books and videogames

>birthing someone without their consent
Why are people this selfish?

Because it doesn't matter what others want, what matters is what they want.

Suit urself

'That marriage is a failure none but the very stupid will deny. One has but to glance over the statistics of divorce to realize how bitter a failure marriage really is. Nor will the stereotyped Philistine argument that the laxity of divorce laws and the growing looseness of woman account for the fact that: first, every twelfth marriage ends in divorce; second, that since 1870 divorces have increased from 28 to 73 for every hundred thousand population; third, that adultery, since 1867, as ground for divorce, has increased 270.8 per cent.; fourth, that desertion increased 369.8 per cent.'
marxists.org/reference/archive/goldman/works/1914/marriage-love.htm

'Marriage and divorce are both common experiences. In Western cultures, more than 90 percent of people marry by age 50. Healthy marriages are good for couples’ mental and physical health. They are also good for children; growing up in a happy home protects children from mental, physical, educational and social problems. However, about 40 to 50 percent of married couples in the United States divorce. The divorce rate for subsequent marriages is even higher.'
apa.org/topics/divorce/

>this thread
The absolute state of COLLAPSE of Western Civilization

Is it the Jews again?

What do you win for slogging through life? The opportunity to make someone else slog through life?

Your idiotic huamn darwinism is the result of the collapse of western civilization of anything

>believing Western civilization is collapsing makes you far right
Fuck off with your strawman brainlet.

Western civilization has been collapsing since its inception

t. Neo-NAzi drumpf supporting raycis scum.

You win the chance to pass off your values, ethics, culture, as well as your genes.

Or do you believe in moral relativism?
Is it not ethical to raise proper children that can sustain a democratic civilization?

>Or do you believe in moral relativism?
Antinatalism isn't born of moral relativism.
>Is it not ethical to raise proper children that can sustain a democratic civilization?
What do you need to sustain a democratic civilization or much of anything for?

Yes it does

>Or do you believe in moral relativism?

Of course I do.

thats because you no longer need 5-10 kids to help you in agriculture or leading private business since self employment is on heavy decline since 19-20 century to the point where today its almost non existent

>What do you need to sustain a democratic civilization or much of anything for?

Because the anti-natalist argument goes this way: "It is immoral to bring children to this world against their choice"

If that's the case, then only immoral people are having children. And if immoral children are having children and you are doing nothing, then the future world will look worse, condemning even more children to a miserable life.

Thus moral people should also have children and raise them right to better the world.

That is the rebuttal, if you follow the moral antinatalist argument. The reality is that most of you are simply selfish manchildren, using half assed reasonings to justify spitting on your ancestor's ashes.

>my genes

My ancestors genes, there's no "mine" genes.

>And if immoral children are having children and you are doing nothing
You can do your part and not have children.
>Thus moral people should also have children and raise them right to better the world.
But that would make them immoral people.

Semantics, also known as the fallacy of evasion.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evasion_(ethics)

>ancestor worship

How can I tell you're a virgin

>You can do your part and not have children.
Condemning future children to live in a more miserable world.

>But that would make them immoral people.
Which is why the anti-natalist argument is fallacious.

Not a virgin, stop projecting

I'm just telling the truth, those crap genes are mine as the watch I inherited from my grandpa, plus they will go ahead with sisters and other relatives fucking, there's no real loss here.

>Not a virgin

lol

>You win the chance to pass off your values, ethics, culture, as well as your genes.
How will that improve my life in any way?

It won't, that's why anti-natalists are selfish and immoral. At least you are honest and not a hypocrite like the others.

Fun its a meme

Why am I selfish for not wanting to do something that will not improve my life or that of my loved ones in any way?
Morality isn't objective.

you are a meme

>Condemning future children to live in a more miserable world.
That's what you do when you have children.
>Which is why the anti-natalist argument is fallacious.
That makes the natalist argument fallacious. You don't have more children to make less children suffer. You're only forcing more people into life and increasing total suffering.

Pretty sure that the people who proclaim antinatalism are also coincidentally the people no women want to have sex with, let alone have children with.

Look both do what the fuck you want. If you have a problem with africans just buy a gun and blast them

>That makes the natalist argument fallacious. You don't have more children to make less children suffer. You're only forcing more people into life and increasing total suffering.
No, total suffering will increase much more because people with no moral qualms about it will be having children instead.

Not to mention... if life is so terrible, why don't you kill yourself? You are after all assuming non-existence is better than existence, and every life a cause of suffering. The logical conclusion of this fallacious thinking is that you should kill yourself to reduce suffering in the world.

I am not sure if I ever want to have children because I don't want them to grow up and live in an operpopulated and polluted world.

>The solution to evil people doing evil is for good people to do evil.
I don't understand how that doesn't bring more evil into the world.
>Not to mention... if life is so terrible, why don't you kill yourself?
Because the evil was done. I'm alive and I suffer not only because I'm alive but also because I'm made to fear my impending death. I can't kill myself because unlike the unborn whom no one knows or cares about people know and care about me. Natalism is wrong because it forces people into a situation with no moral exit except that of not perpetuating suffering by choosing not to procreate.
>You are after all assuming non-existence is better than existence, and every life a cause of suffering.
You can't have suffering without life.

>muh consent

nice reddit spacing

/thread

>Because the evil was done. I'm alive and I suffer not only because I'm alive but also because I'm made to fear my impending death.
No life = No fear. You still haven't explained how this is not an argument to killing yourself. Why do you keep prolonging your fear?

>I can't kill myself because unlike the unborn whom no one knows or cares about people know and care about me.
You should kill them as well, before they suffer. You or other loved ones are bound to die someday, creating suffering anyway, it is inevitable.

How is this line of reasoning not an argument to poisoning your entire family painlessly, Jim Jones style and killing yourself?

>Natalism is wrong because it forces people into a situation with no moral exit except that of not perpetuating suffering by choosing not to procreate.
People will be born anyway, just in a worse place where moral people won't be having children out of ridiculous guilt tripping lines of reasoning.

>You can't have suffering without life
You can't have happiness either.

You can't /thread your own post.

>>Who will look after you in your old age?
>
>Medicine, it's advancing at a real fast rate
yur not a boomer pal the ponzi scheme is gunna blow up by the time ur old

life expectancy has peaked too btw

Dying isn't the same as never being born. I've been alive and nothing I do can change that. What I can do is save others from being in my situation.
>People will be born anyway, just in a worse place where moral people won't be having children out of ridiculous guilt tripping lines of reasoning.
Other people doing evil isn't an excuse for doing evil yourself. You're only compounding to the problem no matter how you rationalize this selfish act as being noble. You aren't suffering for a reason; you aren't building a better future. Life is suffering and always will be because suffering is intrinsic to it. You can mitigate suffering, but you can never eliminate it as long as life goes on. A life where the sum of pleasure is superior to the sum of suffering is impossible because pleasure only exists alongside suffering. Pleasure is the respite from suffering and has no meaning in isolation. This is a futile venture devised by people craving for purpose and imposed on future generations. They aren't procreating for the benefit of their children, they're procreating for themselves. They're procreating because this is the biological prerogative and because this is how they cope with existential pain.
>You can't have happiness either.
Being unborn means not needing happiness.

>Dying isn't the same as never being born.
How do you know?

>What I can do is save others from being in my situation.
Against their will

>You aren't suffering for a reason; you aren't building a better future.
So the entirety of human history was for nothing?

>Life is suffering and always will be because suffering is intrinsic to it. You can mitigate suffering, but you can never eliminate it as long as life goes on. A life where the sum of pleasure is superior to the sum of suffering is impossible because pleasure only exists alongside suffering.
Do you realize how insane this sounds?
Yes, suffering is intrinsic to being alive, so is pleasure, which is not just the absence of suffering but in itself a separate form of response to stimuli.

>Pleasure is the respite from suffering and has no meaning in isolation.
Objectively wrong as explained above.

>Being unborn means not needing happiness.
Thank for your confirming anti-natalism is an insane death cult.

Why is having children less selfish than not having children? People don't decide to have kids for the sake of the not yet extant kid and only an autist would do it for muh duty to society/muh genes. Most people who have kids do so by accident or because they want to, for their own happiness.

>How do you know?
Deduction.
>Against their will
No one wants to be born. It's just something that happens.
>So the entirety of human history was for nothing?
Yes.
>Do you realize how insane this sounds?
Pleasure is the fulfillment of a desire whose unfulfillment necessarily caused suffering. Pleasure is intimately linked to suffering.
>Thank for your confirming anti-natalism is an insane death cult.
Not an argument.