Stop promoting Natalism

Yes, what a stupid fucking question.

"Non-whites" tend to have more children because they tend to be poorer. H'whites on the other hand tend to be well off so they fuck less.

It's also because their culture revolves around the creation of large families, which has been thoroughly destroyed in the west by corruptive forces.

>Clearly the state has an interest in a growing population. Why? Is it just to maintain a tax base and have bodies for conscription?
There's also the necessity of passing down social capital, the sustenance of society etc. Why the fuck do you think? You think a society of old people slowly dying off could function as a society?
As far as I know op's arguments, he posits death as superior to life since in death one cannot feel pain. And if death is superior to life, death is superior to life at any given time, be it birth, youth, old age or the deathbed.

it is short term and political, people with families are less likely to risk losing their job or rebel

Source?

Living in an European country filled with Arabs

That is not a source.

Of course my rational /leftypol/ friend, personal observations are not a source haha.

>personal observations are not a source
That's right

logically explain your position

The burden of proof is on you to justify human posterity

Anti-Natalism is incredibly retarded because the type of people who allow rational arguments to impact their lifestyle are precisely the type of people we want to have children. The teeming masses of proles will continue to multiply like rabbits regardless of any arguments presented to them so all anti-natalism does is remove good genes while doing nothing to address the real cause of overpopulation. Anti-natalism is such a dysgenic and cuckolded ideology I have to wonder if the Jews are behind it.

The rational position is that humanity should die out, the earth would be much better off without us

Why? I'm not trying to justify human posterity.

> I'm not trying to justify human posterity
Good, so you're an anti-natalist.

Nice one Bat'ko, didn't know you came here you crusty anarchist. Anyway, I found you a nice .pdf to skimp through where the cultural effects on fertility are discussed.

etheses.lse.ac.uk/986/1/Ellis_Culture_Fertility_son_preferance.pdf

I'm not Bat'ko and I'm not reading an entire book for you, dummy

Hordes of 75 IQ shitskins aren't going to listen to your antinatalist arguments, you dumb cuck. All your ideology does is promote the removal of superior genes from the gene pool.

How am I an anti-natalist?

I cannot comprehend living in such a state of self-loathing.

lol
Becuase you cannot justify human posterity
lol

Then I hope you take your epic Simpson reaction image posting back to your xanax popping nihilistic tumblr page faggot.

Ok even if I were to accept that premise, the whole point of anti-natalism is to persuade people to choose not to reproduce and my point is that only rational people will allow themselves to be persuaded by argumentation whereas the vast majority of people do not care and will have babies no matter what arguments are presented to them. The only way to bring about the end of humanity as a species is through violence or resource depletion but all anti-natalism does is lower the quality of the gene pool.

>Becuase you cannot justify human posterity
Shitskins will justify it by executing you in some barbaric manner. I guess you would consider that a good outcome though, right?

jej
It's not realistic, sure.Hopefully, if the standard of living is increased and everyone lives moderately comfy lives, can we then start to push a hard anti-natalist message.

Why does not justifying human posterity make me anti-natalist?

Just because I am not pro-natalist does not mean I am anti-natalist.

I'm black, Timmy

>I have no opinions guise i'm le radical centrist xD
please fuck off

>Why does not justifying human posterity make me anti-natalist
Because you cant give a rational reason for humanities continuing existence. Which, to be fair, could make you just neutral on reproduction, but more likely than not it will lead to you becoming an anti-natalist.

If you really want to do your part you can start translating the anti-natalist message into Bantu and Swahili.

Nah, the world is becoming more international, so English, German, French, Chinese, etc are being taught all over the world. I wont have to translate anything to bantu or swahili

I am not a radical centrist. I am not pushing any particular view, merely asking you to justify your own.

Then the least you could do is lead by example and castrate yourself.

Stop getting emotional, Danny

Explain your moral philosophy and how you determine whether something is justified or not.

Well to justify something is to make it logical or reasonable, something that human posterity is not.

>Antinatalism

While the word 'cuck' gets thrown around a lot these days, mostly improperly applied as a generic insult by /pol/ tier morons, it is actually very applicable to this ideology.

Antinatalism is the theory that, while the biological imperative of all life to ever have existed is to reproduce to continue its existence, you, as an individual, are so pathetic and inferior that you should not reproduce, in order to allow others to use the resources you and your progeny would have.

The Earth and all its resources are used by every animal and plant at a rate commensurate with their ability. Our ability is simply so much greater. Whether by nature or by divinity or by accident, we have become masters of this sphere, and it exists now to serve us. To willingly give that up is literally directly equivalent to allowing someone else to have sex with your wife because you believe it's better to make them happy than it is to defend your reproductive agency.

I do not believe it is morally right or necessary that I give up anything for anyone else lest it gain me something significant in return (egoism to some degree is ultimately irrefutable). Not reproducing does not gain me anything that I would consider greater than the joy I experience in raising my children, nor would it gain me anything that I'd consider greater than the knowledge that my genes (which are, unironically, above the average in quality) will be passed on as my legacy and gift to humanity as a species (that sounds INCREDIBLY pretentious, but it is true).

It's not an issue of racialism or any other ridiculous notion, it's simply personal agency in achieving the biological imperative, and the value of such an action versus the value of ending the 3.5 billion year genetic lineage that led to your creation, and gave you the right of the conqueror over the control, utility, and stewardship of Earth.

Au contraire comrade, I am merely encouraging you to take your beliefs to their logical conclusion. You can tell me to stop getting emotional when I start posting pictures intended to mock you ;^)

> are so pathetic and inferior that you should not reproduce
Nope, there simply is no justification for human posterity
>I do not believe it is morally right or necessary that I give up anything for anyone else lest it gain me something significant in return
Justify this
>personal agency
Does not exist

I'm not in favor of killing myself because that would go against my self-interest. I'm only against a further posterity.

>Justify this

I don't need to. All morality is personally relative, simply coming from our emotional interpretation of the world around us and the subjective moral questions posed.

What you're asking me to justify is an egoist position that simply stems from the fact that, because I feel this way and because I feel this is right, as far as I'm concerned, it IS right, and the only way you can countermand this right is by convincing me that my emotional reaction is wrong (which is very unlikely) or by the use of physical force to prevent me from acting on my belief.

>Nope, there simply is no justification for human posterity

There needn't be, it is the default position of the idea of life (biological reproduction is one of the core elements of what defines a living being).

Re-read my post you silly goose, castration is a simple and safe procedure that will allow you to live out the rest of your days filled with pride knowing you did everything you could to advance the anti-natalist cause.

This thread is leading me to believe that Schopenhauer was a mistake.

>I don't need to
Yes you do
>because I feel this way and because I feel this is right, as far as I'm concerned, it IS right
If i feel like killing wh*tes is ok, does it make it ok?
>it is the default position of the idea of life
Its the default position of humanity, but humanity has not justified its existence.

nah that would probably hurt so it would go against my self-interest, nice try sweety

Who let this facebook monkey in

>Yes you do

Why exactly?

>If i feel like killing wh*tes is ok, does it make it ok?

For you, yes it does. The whites in society will obviously then be faced with the moral question 'Should we tolerate someone trying to kill us?', to which most of them will answer 'No', and then will use physical force to countermand your moral decision. Who is right and who is wrong on the societal scale is defined by who wins that conflict, while on the personal scale, you may spend the rest of your life in prison determined that you are morally right, but unless you can act on it, righteousness is irrelevant.

>Its the default position of humanity, but humanity has not justified its existence.

No it is the default position of ALL life. A thing cannot be considered alive unless it has the theoretical ability to biologically reproduce (note that this does not imply people who are infertile, people who are gay, animals which are cloned, or animals which are sterile crossbreeds etc are not alive, as they do have the theoretical ability to reproduce, but have lost it due to aberrations of the genetic process, or personal emotional effect).

Speaking of self interest, it is of mine to have less black communists in the world. Would you mind giving me your adress so I can smother you in your sleep?

>Why exactly?
...Becuase things have to be justified...
>For you, yes it does.
Not it does not make it ok because it's not justifiable
>No it is the default position of ALL life
True, but we have the ability to stop ourselves from continuing life (because of our intelligence), which we should due to us not being able to justify our posterity.

That would be against my self interest, Tommy

Understable, have a nice day.

You too, Christian dog

>Becuase things have to be justified

I explained my justification here specifically in my non-justification. It is personally relative morality, and my specific decision is based on my specific emotional reaction. This does not need justification, because it cannot be justified as it is the innate foundation of every thought and moral decision in my mind.

>Not it does not make it ok because it's not justifiable

But it is justifiable, just not to anyone other than yourself, because you are the genesis of the position, and also the only one to whom it is relevant on an innate and total level, that's the whole issue. Any justification of your decision (not the process, but the decision) to anyone other than yourself is simply your attempt at persuasion.

>True, but we have the ability to stop ourselves from continuing life (because of our intelligence), which we should due to us not being able to justify our posterity.

Why do you feel this way?

As I have explained, within this framework, you have within you an emotional reaction that induces some willingness to abrogate your biological ability to reproduce, antinatalism is simply an attempt at a logical justification of that emotional decision, and any talk of the idea is not talk of righteousness, but your attempt to persuade others that your emotional reaction is right and theirs is wrong.

I'm just curious as to what emotional reaction within you causes this feeling which I do not share.

> and my specific decision is based on my specific emotional reaction
This is not based on objectivity
>But it is justifiable
It's not objective and does not factor in self-interest, so it's not justifiable
>Why do you feel this way?
Becuase human posterity cannot be justified objectively

>There are no justification for something so I should just put the burden if proof on them and hate their ideology which is biologically natural until then.

Its as dumb as an atheist saying that until its proven that god exist we should hate him from all our heart

>objectivity
>objective
>objectively

This is not a rewarding or relevant line of thinking.

Objectivity is not a factor in morality. It simply can't be. Unless you want to play semantics games and say subjectivity is objective.

What you're trying to put together is a moral framework that relies on an unreasonable assumption (the assumption that there MAY be a moral objective) when a reasonable observation (subjectivity or response and variance in human action and though) yields a more applicable framework.

Subjectivity can be proven by simple thought experiments (solipsism for example) and by observation of human action (that there is no moral question which has only one answer).

Unless you can prove objectivity somehow extends beyond the hypothetical mathematical realm (the concept of a number, for example, is objective, but only within YOUR mind, as you cannot ever state with 100% certainty that someone else's hypothetical number is exactly the same as yours), you cannot rely on it as a foundation of any moral theory.

If you can present any subjective argument for the value of antinatalism, I'd love to hear it, as contained within would be an insight into your emotional state and the font of your reasoning (which is always interesting).

>"Non-whites" tend to have more children because they tend to be poorer.
[citation needed]
Mormons have huge families, all Mormons are white.

yeah pretty much
>Objectivity is not a factor in morality. It simply can't be.
lol
They are an exception, not a rule. And it is not just nonwhites, poorer people tend to have a lot more kids than well-off people, that is the trend.