How can you justify having children?

I'm glad to be alive and I'd like to think that my kids will be too.

Stay mad, depressed cuck.
>mfw Veeky Forums doesn't want this

>Only people that are born can suffer and die.
And it doesn't matter if they aren't born.
So this is a non-argument.
>Without life there would be no death, no pain and no suffering.
See above.
>a) you will be dead in less than a hundred years anyway,
And?
That's longer than you get, if you aren't born at all.
>b) the memory of you will eventually fade,
Actually, it might not.
Considering we've never been this technologically advanced before and theoretically data, or a scientific discovery, could exist for the rest of humanities existence in whatever form.
>c) humanity will sooner or later go extinct, as the universe itself will sooner or later decay
And?
We may also become immortal.
We may also find a way to extend the life of the universe.
We may find a way to another universe.
We may find a way to create another universe.
It also isn't certain that the universe will end.
>Given the futility of life how could you intentionally reproduce and prolong this madness?
As I've just proved, it isn't and you're very ignorant for thinking that it is.
>Every birth is a death penalty.
And so is every non-birth.
Nice circular argument you sophist, but it is all pure (weak) speculation and has the potential to be a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Also, if you really think that way, you idiotic misanthrope, please succumb to your "death penalty" as soon as possible.

>it implies hard monist materialism is correct

because it is. this is Veeky Forums, not /x/

>it implies we know the ultimate fate of the universe AND know sufficiently advanced life cannot intervene

second law of thermodynamics guarantees that whatever happens, Big Rip, Big Freeze or Big Crunch - death will come for all of creation eventually.

I'll take any of the older girls: left, centre or right.
They're all quite pretty.

I'd plow them all then suck off the father for good measure, if you know what I mean

friendly reminder

>because it is. this is Veeky Forums, not /x/
False dichotomy, Nostradamus.
>second law of thermodynamics guarantees that whatever happens, Big Rip, Big Freeze or Big Crunch - death will come for all of creation eventually.
If our model is correct and that's a pretty big if, considering we've only been at this for a few hundred years and less than that directly on the end of the universe.
I think you put too much stock in human thought.

>So this is a non-argument.

how is this a non-argument? You cannot suffer if you are never born and you lose nothing.

>And so is every non-birth.

no, you cannot die if you are never born in the first place.
>We may also become immortal.

no, we cannot
>We may also find a way to extend the life of the universe.

no, we cannot
>It also isn't certain that the universe will end.
It is.

Keep believing the fairy tale.

I'd also put philosophy of science and analytic philosophy in the left, as they're not waffly pretentious bullshit.

you also need to remember that energy cannot be created nor destroyed therfore anything in the universe "technically" CANNOT completely die to vanish

Upboated Fellow Redditor!

>My life is pretty great

not being born is still better than even the best possible life, as being dead you would not suffer from being deprived of life's happy moments. You are not suffering from the lack of a million dollars I never gave you.

>how is this a non-argument? You cannot suffer if you are never born and you lose nothing.
That doesn't make it an argument.
It makes it circular and therefore unanswerable and therefore, not an argument.
>no, you cannot die if you are never born in the first place.
Actually, it is, because you aren't giving the child choice.
You're making a choice.
That choice is, no life, therefore 'death'.
And because it is an enforcement judgement, without consent.
It is a penalty.
Ergo, death penalty.
>no, we cannot
You don't know, Nostradamus.
>no, we cannot
You don't know, Nostradamus.
>no, we cannot
You don't know, Nostradamus.
>It is.
>Keep believing the fairy tale.
You're doing the same, believing in a purely circular argument.
Which, if you knew anything about philosophy.
Isn't a valid argument, or answer.
Literal bullshit.

>energy cannot be created nor destroyed

there needs to be an energy gradient for anything to happen. If energy is homogenously distributed - no work is possible, therefore nothing can happen. That's thermodynamics 101.

>It makes it circular

You keep mistaking 'dying' and 'death'.

there is nothing bad about death - as by definition you don't exist and cannot suffer while being dead.

Dying and the fear of death, however, are two very unpleasant things inevitably connected two life.

They are avoidable, however - by never being born in the first place.

You know what, I'm not even going to bother with this.
I'm simply going to say.
Make your argument is circular and unprovable, even mathematically, let alone via the scientific method or symbolically with mathematical logic.
It isn't an argument, or a solution.
Simply a statement.
Therefore, by definition of the terms, a non-argument.
We aren't being profound, you're being pretentious.

I don't suffer from the deprivation of pleasure because I'm not a hedonist. If I see a guy with a yacht, I don't feel anything negative, maybe desire to work harder, but jealousy is not something to aspire to.
On the other hand, I experience pleasure from what I achieve. Read some stoic philosophy, should counter your edgy post-modernist nihilism.

>Actually, it is, because you aren't giving the child choice.
>You're making a choice.

there is no child if you never procreate. You cannot turn the argument upside-down when it concerns a non-entity, a never born imaginary child.
You cannot consider moral choices when there is no subject of said choice. It only becomes a dilemma when there is a child to be born.

>You keep mistaking 'dying' and 'death'.
They're the same thing you wannabe sophist.
>there is nothing bad about death - as by definition you don't exist and cannot suffer while being dead.
There's nothing bad about life.
Badness is subjective and relativist.
>Dying and the fear of death, however, are two very unpleasant things inevitably connected two life.
Unpleasantness is subjective and relativist.
Also, it is shown that some people are unphased by death, or even feel pleasure.
>They are avoidable
Not necessarily.
>by never being born in the first place.
And by not being born, you avoid not being born.
As pain is subjective and relativist.
I hope you enjoy your logic as much as other people do.

>there is no child if you never procreate.
What about the soul that might possibly exist?
You know, like the speculation your non-argument relies on.
>You cannot turn the argument upside-down when it concerns a non-entity, a never born imaginary child.
See above.
>You cannot consider moral choices when there is no subject of said choice.
See above.
>It only becomes a dilemma when there is a child to be born.
See above.

>edgy post-modernist nihilism

You just called Aristotle an edgy post-modern nihilist, nice.

>You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: ‘you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.’ It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living.

Appeal to authority.

Or possibly an appeal to celebrity.

>They're the same thing

How? Dying is what living things do. Death is simply not being alive. They are as different as eating is different from food.

Is a rock 'dying' ? No, but it is most certainly dead.

Were you 'dying' 1000 years ago? No, but you were most certainly dead.

Dying is the action of death.
Death is the state of being dead.
Death implies life.
A soul is arguably alive.
Good luck disproving a soul, when your whole argument relies on 'circular speculation' also.

>hurr what is this post-modern edgy teenage shit

>being given proof that the idea is as old as philosopy itself

>hurr durr logical fallacy

You shouldn't have started with a shitty ad hominem non-argument, then.

I'm not the guy you were arguing, I just thought I'd be a pedant and play Devil's advocate.
Sadly he didn't hire a very good attorney.

> Plants, animals, funghi, bacteria etc. continue to live through reproduction
> Somehow, it's different for humans

Pick one

So what? Aristotle was wrong. Why don't you respond to the argument I made in the first part of my post?

It's fine, I beat them down with their own rhetorical style (retarded).

>giving a shit about suffering and death

Did the Jews pay you to make this thread to help prevent whites from breeding, OP?

I'm already up to 5 children. I'm having as many as possible and there's nothing you can do to stop me. In 100 years there will be approximately 100 people sprung from my lineage.

ME: 5
OP: 0

ME: 2
OP: 0
I'm working on it, based user.

I never understood how this chart is set up. How is it justified that the absence of pleasure is "not bad" if pleasure is a good thing?
If the absence of a negative gives you not a neutral but a positive benefit, why does the absence of a positive only cause neutrality?

Because the chart is designed with the conclusion in mind.

You're playing a zero sum game

How did you find a wife that wanted that many kids?

church

How come it's always argued that all the good things in life don't matter since you'll die and fade away, yet all the suffering isn't treated the same way?

The human condition is to suffer, yes. so far.

I'd like to believe the universal condition is not similar though. So basically there needs to be suffering now in order to prevent it later. Having a child depends mostly on how much the child will improve the world, compared to the experience of the child. If the child is well educated and raised well, then it will hopefully have a positive effect on the world and bring forth far more future happiness.
If the child has neutral or negative consequences, its life is a failure. Being a human, we can be sure it already itself experiences much suffering. So we're already in the negative (which is why even neutral consequences aren't good enough). Then if they cause problems for others, damn. Can you imagine the fallout from even one theif? How different might the universe be 100 years later if a theif was born or not? (in general it might seem inconsequential but say literally everything is the same. The only difference is the theif.

"Bwaaaaa, why is life so unfair? Stop having children! :(". Selfish virgin thinks people should stop existing just because he failed at life and deals with it throwing pseudo-intellectual bullshit around.

Maybe you would change your mind if you stopped watching anime and moved your ass. Life is great! Drive your Ferrari, fuck hot girls on your yacht, party a lot, snort all the coke you can, go to a skiing resort, and die. YOLO.

If you can't, at least don't stop others from doing so. Nobody cares about your depression and negative energies, and we will keep having children just to shove it on your face loser.

Signed: the rest of humanity.

4chad 2017

He's right though. Most anti-natalists have depression and project their psychological disconnection with human life by believing in anti-natalism as a valid policy. This thread (and your kind of "people") belong on .

People like OP live too much of a pathetic life to understand that two persons who love each other would like to spread the blessing of life to others. It's simple. Man and woman marry, love each other, have decent jobs, are happy. Why not have children and spread this blessing of happiness giving them love from birth? It's people like OP who are the problem, they are the ones who should be aborted for spreading negativity in the world and being inconvenient to sentient life forms as opposed to the semi-conscious animal he is.

>He's right though
>Life is great! Drive your Ferrari, fuck hot girls on your yacht, party a lot, snort all the coke you can, go to a skiing resort, and die. YOLO.

That's not how life works. I'm not supporting anti-natalism, but this conception of life as an absolute party is a fairy tale. Life implies suffering. If you want to embrace life, you have also to embrace some suffering.

>life is suffering
What is this, /r9k/? Fuck off with your depression. Take some anti-depressants and that will change your mind fucking retard. Or maybe just kill yourself, nobody would miss someone who constantly whines about "life being suffer" as you are doing.

>Man and woman marry, love each other, have decent jobs, are happy. Why not have children and spread this blessing of happiness giving them love from birth?

This is the problem. Many people should not have kids. What can a kid get from alcoholic, junkie or retard parents?
These kids grow up in a sterile environment, They are used as emotional punch bags, They are not educated properly and They will probably end as their loser parents.

Read my post again. I'm not saying that the whole life is suffering. My point is that life implies some suffering and it's totally different from the fairy tale you posted above.
Obviously life can also be good sometimes.

>hedonism will make you forget about nihlism goy!

Nah, its boring too

>this whole post

>4chad

No, I grew up on a decent ambient, but you can't deny that thousand of persons experience that hell.

Isn't the shittiness of death a tacit admission that life is amazing?

You can neck yourself at any time. The reason you haven't is because you've calculated that life is worth living.

Their lives don't matter and you shouldn't care about them. Enjoy your life at the expense of others or at least stop complaining about things you cannot change.

>anything people enjoy in life is hedonism
t. autist

There's no reason to kill yourself either, is irrelevant

Well, the post is supposed to be about anti-natalism in general. I'm not a radical anti-natalist but I think we shouldn't allow these fuckers to reproduce.

They should be tortured because they are losers. Their lives are insignificant in the overall course of history as they are disgusting and inconvenient semi-conscious sub-human chimpanzees. They could work as subjects to scientific experimentation and weapons testing.

Because Benatar is an autist. The absence of pain is "not bad" not "good". Pleasure isn't always "good" either. Humanity is goal-driven, the concept of pleasure and pain are simply a means to a more psychologically satisfying end.

You could create the same chart with the same shitty, edgy assumptions for literally anything.

Presence of Ugly Art (Bad)
Absence of Ugly Art (Good)
Presence of Beautiful Art (Good)
Absence of Beautiful Art (Not Bad)

Therefore nobody should create art. LOOK AT ME, I'M A THIRD RATE """""PHILOSOPHER""""". Put this shit on /b/ with all of the other half-baked thoughts.

that graph is wrong

presence of pleasure >>>>>>> absence of pain

whoever made this is trying to jew you hard.

are you suffering right now because of the lack of a million dollars you never knew I wanted to give you ? No? Then it is not bad.

>In 100 years there will be approximately 100 dead people because of my

Truly a great achievement.

So basically you admit that you have failed so hard you have to resort to drugs to enjoy life. Nice.
>Life is great

it does not matter. Never being born is still a better deal.

No it isn't. Not being able to learn, grow, and find purpose is a shit deal. You just stay meaningless all of the time.

Plus, if you hate life bad enough you can always kill yourself. No option to drag yourself into the world of existence after your retarded, would-be father sterilized himself because thought a brainlet's infographic was the meaning to life.

Because these ideas are being pushed by mentally unstable people with nothing good going for them.

>Benatar's assymetry
Exactly what I've been telling my friend. Didn't even know it was a thing.

ah, poor OP

I stopped arguing AN in public forum years ago. Arguing it on Veeky Forums, however, is about as constructive as putting your wet balls in lye. I have found that this board becomes the worst of all skies to fly this argument in. Here are a few reasons why...

>the sunshine abandonment of materialism
a board that usually prides itself on the provable and physical while leaving matters of dualism under the label of "really not my bag, only interested in experimentally verifiable results," turns into Palm Sunday when AN is mentioned

>the subtle definition of 'suffering'
I've noticed that many in the AN community kinda beef this one, as well. I recommend anyone interested to become familiar with Antifrustrationism before approaching the asymmetry argument

>suffering is subjective, therefore is doesn't matter
the realm of pure thought vs. the cancer ward. By that logic, all things perceived by a central-nervous system are irrelevant... so why expend energy to create one? Of all the forms the distraction of death can take, why do the one that signs people up for the need to distract from death? It just forms a shitty feedback loop

>nothing matters
>you shouldn't do anything
>being happy is lie
>there is bad but not good, something is worse than nothing
Wah wah wah, what the fuck is even the point of arguing this?
>drugs are bad because reasons and only exist because existence is pain
Just kys

>I'm not going to bother with this
>bothers with it
take out your first statement and we have cohesion

>it's a 15 y/o teenager is sad that his crush is banging Chad Thundercock and has to come to Veeky Forums with a century old philosophical argument he just discovered and knows really nothing about breaking everyone's balls about it episode

look stupid robot cuck the only meaning to life is to produce more life so I will keep nutting into my gf, because even if death is the ultimate fate of everything I find it just that at some point in time, somebody (perhaps not even human by then) will have the ultimate knowledge of the Universe. Then the quest of sentient life will have been completed and they will have 2 options mass suicide or pure intellectual hedonism.
Until then, not having kids doesn't make you "liberated", just a loser.

I'm very very happy with my life, but I wish I was never born

Suffering is an emotion, and it sucks. Pleasure is an emotion, and it's good.
If suffering is worth to not exist for then pleasure must be worth existence. Besides, they can kill themselves anyways if they want to.

This. Fucking this.

Chad is plowing the mother and the three elder sisters RIGHT NOW!

if you were both serious, like actually serious, you would have killed yourselves. Just saying. I didnt chose to be born but every second i dont off myself is a testament that i enjoy living and want to continue it.

Utterly wrong
Life worth starting =/= life worth continuing

>proven

you like to think your kids will be. Even if they did end up being happy to be alive they wouldn't be missing out on anything never being born in the first place. Most people experience some degree of unhappiness during their lives. why roll the dice?

You're just projecting the fact that your life is unhappy to explain why you think nobody should live because everyone must be as unhappy as you.

around 38.5% of people will be diagnosed with cancer
one in 6 people in the US use psychiatric drugs
130 million visits to the ER in 2013
and so on.
That’s objectively bad. There’s no selfless reason to subject a child to potential pain.

153 million orphans worldwide. Almost 400,000 are in foster care in US.
If you want a child, adopt.

>b…b..but i want it to look like me

Look at all the retarded people on this Earth. If you don't have children, this world will be run by niggers and spics.

Do you want that?

Adopting is hard and more expensive than birthing a kid in the us. You want people to adopt make it easier.

>Be chilling be your wife, walking down the street
>Some cracked up nigger with a knife tries to steal shit from us and ends up killing my wife
This is my nightmare, call me racist but I can't stand the thought of having a family in a world filled with fucking jungle monkeys.