Why aren't you an anti-natalist yet?

>>38842137
Absence of pain isn't good it's not bad

>smart white people defecting from the gene pool because of an abstract philosophical argument
Please don't do this.

>>38843466
>dumb /pol/tards treating the white race as a sacrosanct, superior entity
Please don't do this.

>>38843424
That's completely wrong. Absence of pain is very good.

>>38843484
No, it's neutral, just like absence of pleasure.

>pain is bad

That's stupid. You don't want to not feel pain.

>>38843489
It can only be neutral if pain is also neutral. If you specifically don't want pain, then it's bad. If you don't care whether you're in pain or not, sure it's neutral.

>>38843482
I'm just worried about dysgenics man. Negative Flynn effect is real, and serious.

>>38843522
By the same argument, absence of pleasure is bad. Your 'logic' is inconsistent and you're an idiot.

File: 1500437882834.gif (997KB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

997KB, 500x281px

>>38843466
It's more of a logical conclusion you come to when you think about life honestly, instead of obeying your biological/social/religious programming.

>>38843499
You never really experienced pain, anon. This is why it appears useful to you, because for you it's just your cue to adjust the temperature of the shower, or not put your hand on the stove or something.

>>38843484
What >>38843489 said
Absence of something is neutral.
But if you want to claim that absence of pain is good, then absence of pleasure is bad.

>>38843499
What's objectively good about feeling pain? Obviously it's useful in the world we live in to teach us what not to do, but OP's argument is that it'd be better to not be in the world at all.
>>38843536
>>38843545
Pain and pleasure aren't exact opposites. It's not a big deal to not feel pleasure, but it is a big deal to experience pain. You should be extremely grateful every day you're not in pain, whether you experience pleasure or not. Absence of something bad is most definitely good. Absence of something good doesn't really matter.

>>38843600
So someone who lives their whole lives without any pain or pleasure doesn't live a near hellisg existence and will not try to kill themselves? Ok

>>38843638
Pain isn't just physical. Clearly in your scenario, the person would have the mental anguish of living a numb existence. If they didn't experience that pain either, then they'd have no reason to kill themselves. Again, OP's argument is that we shouldn't exist in the first place, allowing us to never experience such pain.

>>38843542
>It's more of a logical conclusion you come to when you think about life honestly, instead of obeying your biological/social/religious programming.
I don't agree. There is indeed a utilitarian argument for this, but utilitarianism isn't perfect. Have you read Sarah Perry's Every Cradle is a Grave? You'd like it, she's an anti-natalist as well and a great writer.

You do you, but, for instance, if you care about reducing entropy (locally of course), it could be justifiable to have children, provided you can be reasonably certain they'll be intelligent and help society.

Truth be told I doubt I'll have kids myself (since I'm not straight) so, hopefully we can both find other ways to make things better. Have a nice day anon.

>>38843666
By reducing local entropy, you're increasing overall entropy. The more energy you use, the less there is in the universe. Human society isn't objectively any more important than the rest of the universe. I don't care about the eventual heat death of the universe happening any more quickly, but reducing entropy is not a good argument considering you're increasing it.

>>38843666
>I'm not straight
Kek, as if you can be reasoned with though logic.

>>38843499

Pain can be useful, but it's not a good intrinsically.

I support anti-natalism for all non-whites

>>38843786
>Human society isn't objectively any more important than the rest of the universe
You fell for the pale blue dot nihilist meme. At least your position is consistent.

>>38843811
I can do logic just fine. Being a caricature of a Vulcan however is not a good look.

>>38843542
>You never really experienced pain, anon.
My dick foreskin was glued to the head, and the doctor had to forcefully pull it down. They had to restrain me, and i screamed so much, my throat got sore. Every time i went to pee, it literally burned for a week afterwards. So trust me, i know pain. Probably not as intense passing a kidney stone, or losing a limb though, but still.

>>38843600
>What's objectively good about feeling pain?
It makes you as an organism avoid activities that damage your body. That's literally it.
>OP's argument is that it'd be better to not be in the world at all
Better for what? Better for who? Nothing is inherently good or bad. You need to specify what goal you're measuring good/bad against.

>>38843819
Nothing is good or bad intrinsically. See above.

>>38843848
I'll admit I'm a bit of a nihilist, but what's so great about biological existence? It's just like the rest of the universe, but it experiences pain. I'm glad the universe itself exists, but can you honestly say it's better with life? Would it really be a shame if there was a universe in which life didn't exist?

>>38843900
>It makes you as an organism avoid activities that damage your body.
So why is pain itself good? The point is that if there was no biological existence that could be damaged, it would have no use.

>>38843848
I'm no Vulcan. All I'm saying is that you're not too bright if you let yourself become gay. Doesn't have anything to do with Vulcan logic of choosing to be straight solely for procreation purposes. You can be straight and still not have kids.

>>38843939
It's good for the organism's survival. That's the goal. You need to specify which goal you're measuring good/bad for. The goal here is survival.

So what is the goal you're measuring your definition of good/bad against?

>>38842137
Do you have any evidence that not existing means an absence of pleasure or pain? If not then your entire argument is based on an assumption that you cannot support.

>>38844054
Why is survival inherently good? The argument here is not only would it be good if we didn't survive, but it would be even better if we never existed in the first place.

The goal is literally to not experience pain. Just about every concept of evil in the human psyche revolves around some form of pain. Pain is the ultimate evil, but that doesn't mean pleasure is the ultimate good. Pleasure is just something to supplement the pain of existence to keep us moving.

>>38844102
It would literally be impossible to experience either in non-existence. If pain or pleasure were experienced, that would mean there would have to be something there which experienced it. The argument itself isn't under the assumption that an afterlife doesn't exist, if that's what you're getting at.

>>38843900

>Nothing is good or bad intrinsically.

Sure, a lot of things are. Suffering is intrinsically bad. That's why people avoid it, except as a means to another end.

>>38842137
That's a stupid image. A general presence of pain not an inherently undesirable outcome. Using a strict definition of pain and pleasure is disingenuous, since pure "pleasure" is not a goal of any human. Absence of pleasure is an undesirable situation, whatever that "pleasure" may be. You sound like a modernist cuckold.

>>38843903
Virtuously enduring suffering and the conquering of adversity through will can be one of the meanings of life. Frankly speaking, things only have value of you five them value. Obviously, for you, pain has a lot of value.

>>38844122
Survival is good because it serves the continuation of the species, which is the ultimate goal of life.
Like i said. There is no inherent good/bad. You always need to specify a goal. you're measuring against.
>The goal is literally to not experience pain
Great. Given that goal, you shouldn't do stupid shit that causes you to experience pain.
But the ultimate goal is not just avoidance of pain. The ultimate goal is the continuation of the species the organism is a part of.
Death, non-existence given that goal is bad. But if you measure against the simple goal of not experiencing pain, then yes, non-existence is good.
The discussion should never be about what is good or bad. That will never lead anywhere. The discussion should be about which goal is valid and rational.

>>38844182
>Suffering is intrinsically bad.
No. It isn't. Its just a bunch of signals traveling through a neural network in your brain. Its literally physics and chemistry. No different than any other chemical reaction.
You always need a goal to measure against. The reason you and most people think suffering is bad, is because in their mind they have a specific goal they're measuring the good/bad against.

>>38844182
Please study philosophy some more before spreading your small amount of knowledge of the subject.

Pain allows a comparison for pleasure and is an experience in itself to be appreciated, I'd rather live experiencing both than experiencing neither

>>38844234
I never disagreed with any of what you said, but good job avoiding the question.
>>38844260
If there is no inherent good or bad, why are you arguing as if life's goal of propagation is good? Why would it be bad if it ended? What makes it any more valid or rational than nonexistence?

File: 1476866369772.jpg (61KB, 562x527px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 562x527px

>tfw too intelligent to be antinatalist

>>38844296
>pleasure and pain are good because experiencing them gives me pleasure. if i didnt feel pleasure or pain, it wouldnt be good
Why? Because you wouldnt feel the pleasure?
Please lrn2think

>>38844301
>life's goal of propagation is good
>Why would it be bad if it ended?
Can you not read? Good for what? Every time you use the word good or bad, you need to specifiy what you're measuring against. How many times do i have to say it.
>What makes it any more valid or rational than nonexistence?
Life is a process. Organisms evolve for the sole purpose of the continuation of the species. Just like the moon orbits the earth. Or the fusion within our sun.
It is a bit more complicated process granted, but no different. Your question is the same as asking what makes fusion inside the sun rational.
The answer is physics and chemistry. That's just how our universe works. Laws govern the behaiviour of matter and energy, that result in complex processes like life.

>>38843522
I think you're missing the point here.

I see it as a lifestyle, a mindset. is the abscense of pain good, or not bad? is the presence/abscense of pleassure good/not bad?

imo, point 3 and 4 would suggest a more stable emotional state while 1 and 2 suggest polarized unstability emotionally.

am I going full autist here?

File: typical MGTOW.jpg (191KB, 1199x994px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 1199x994px

>>38842137
>Why aren't you an anti-natalist yet?
Because I am not an incel desperately trying to cloak my failure as a moral good.

>>38844392
>anti-natalist

ohh I wasn't aware of this term. forget it

>>38843466
>Anti-natalist
>Smart
pick one

>>38844327
Absence of pleasure is undesirable for a living human, arguing about whether something is desirable or not relative to a living experience while making a thought experiment about a non-existent state is meaningless.

>>38844387
Sorry about using those words you so seem to hate. By your conviction to support this argument, I was under the impression that you considered life to be "good" and it would be "bad" if it ended.

I understand the biological urge for organisms to pass down their DNA. My question has always been the same and you're misinterpreting (possibly on purpose) the words I choose, so I'll make it more clear: why should we continue this goal life has? Lesser animals do it purely out of instinct. As more intelligent organisms, humans do it out of choice.

>>38844449

This. We eat because we enjoy it, we poop because we enjoy it, we reproduce because we enjoy it, the only reason humans exist is because pleasure makes life worth living

>>38844475
>humans do it out of choice

whose choice? sure, some chose NOT to, but that's the exception not the rule.

biological imperative friend, chosing NOT to have children is a choice, choosing to have them means surrendering to your nature.

>>38844524
Why should we surrender to our nature when we have the ability to go against it? It's a choice to surrender to your nature, just as it's a choice to have children.

>>38844541

Why go against is when it's more enjoyable to go with it

>>38844580
What difference does enjoyment make if it can't be considered "good" by your definition?

>>38844449
This all comes down to the way you assert that pleasure is good. Of course while having that as a basis of though, it would lead to the conclusion that something without pleasure or goodness is meaningless. How is not basing the idea of good or bad on pleasure or pain a nonexistent state?

>>38844475
Assuming we're adhering to hedonism, which we should be if we're still discussing utilitarianism, Life brings with it potential for both suffering and pleasure.
Defining pleasure as Good and pain as Bad, we can make the argument that so long as Actual Pleasure > Actual Pain and/or Probable Pleasure > Probable Pain life represents a net Good.
While there is nothing Bad about a universe without life, there's nothing Good about it either, so since we find ourselves in a universe with sapient, ethical life with agency there is greater benefit to increasing pleasure (making the world a better place) than there is in reducing pain (exterminating all sentient life).

>>38844590

What do semantics matter in experience? People like to do something it makes them feel good so they do it, you can cry all day but people do things that they like to experience and will continue to do so as the alternative is boring

File: Demographic-Winter-208x300.jpg (15KB, 208x300px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 208x300px

>>38842137
Religious outlook
>Life is a gift of God, so having children is both a joy and a duty that grows your love and shows devotion
Healthy atheist outlook
>Evolution demonstrates that if life has any goal it is to propagate genetics so that stochastic processes can continue to operate in geological times frames. Plus, if I pass on my genes I prove my fitness. Children bring happiness and joy anyway, so win-win
Antinatalist outlook
>I can't get laid and I had a splinter once, so only dumb people have kids

>>38844541
well my argument is that it isn't a choice to surrender to your nature (ie have children) it is simply your nature to do so. chosing not to however would mean going against your nature, making it a choice.
i'm not saying you should or shouldn't have children at all, i am more interested in the philosophy itt

>>38842137
lol what is this pussy shit xDDDDD

>>38842137
>Why aren't you an anti-natalist yet?
Because the distribution of pain and pleasure in life is not guaranteed to be equal or favour pain.

>>38844674

It's basically the most beta of the betas

>>38844475
>why should we continue this goal life has?
Same reason why the moon should continue orbiting the sun. You're part of this process. We all are.
>Lesser animals
Whoa there. Hold up. Lesser how? At what? You literally just fell into the trap of not specifying what you're measuring against, even though i've told you repeatedly not to do that. A fish, any fish will beat you at breading under water any time thus making you the lesser organism, if we're measuring how good the organism is at breeding under water. But i'm going to assume you're measuring intelligence. This is a whole different topic altogether. I believe there is no universal intelligence.
>out of instinct
You do realize humans do shit out of instincts all the time right? Not just reflexes. Everything you do can be traced to some for of instinct or conditioning. People like spaceships because the first time they saw one on tv, or somewhere, people were in awe. That's usually how all media presents space, stars, etc. And that's why most people want to be astronauts. That's conditioning that you might not even realize is happening. Same with whatever interests you have, hobbies, etc. Conditioning. There's two reasons why anybody ever thinks or does anything. Biological evolved instinct, or conditioning. Or a mix of the two. Humans are a bit more complicated than animals sure, but that doesn't mean we're somehow above instincts and conditioning. The funny thing is, you don't even realize you've been conditioned, you think your opinions and values are yours and yours alone, when in reality if you examined all your past experiences, your brain chemistry, you could trace your thoughts and ideas to some experience you've had in the past. I'd even argue, that reflexes you can't consciously control, like flinching due to pain, are choices. Since you are your body, and the part of your brain that is responsible for these reflexes is still you, it is in fact you who is making the choice.

>>38844613
How can you not define "good" only in the frame of the living experience? You have to clarify what "good" is. I interpreted it as a desirable outcome, which cannot be assessed from other position than that of a living being.

>>38844619
Pain is much more in abundance than pleasure and always will be. The only way to bring the two to equilibrium would be to reduce them both to nothing. Like OP's picture demonstrates, there is nothing inherently good about "good". It would not be bad to be without it and it would be worth removing if one could also remove bad.

The fact that bad exists at all should be enough to detour one away from continuing life. Let's say 9/10 people get to live "good" lives, which is literally the opposite of current reality. Even if you and your children get to live good lives, you would still subject 1/10 of your offspring to living "bad" lives. You're kind of a dick to put that onto a multitude of people.
>>38844626
The discussion has nothing to do with what humans will ultimately end up doing in practice. I'm not crying in the least and I know it's impossible to stop.
>>38844662
Acting in your nature is a choice if you have a conscious mind like a human, as we have the power to choose to not do it.
>>38844735
Who cares if we're part of a process? We can choose to not be part of it just as much as we can choose to. Of course there is no universal intelligence. You're arguing for the sake of argument. The measurement I was using was whether the creature could consciously act against its biological nature, which humans can. Every other species on Earth is "lesser" in this context. I'm not saying humans can't be or aren't conditioned through general life nor that we don't have natural instincts ourselves. The difference between us and other animals is the fact that we can change despite such conditioning.

>>38844876
>Pain is much more in abundance than pleasure and always will be.
Wrong
>Like OP's picture demonstrates, there is nothing inherently good about "good"
>X is not inherently X
>The fact that bad exists at all should be enough to detour one away from continuing life. Let's say 9/10 people get to live "good" lives, which is literally the opposite of current reality. Even if you and your children get to live good lives, you would still subject 1/10 of your offspring to living "bad" lives. You're kind of a dick to put that onto a multitude of people.
Ohh, you're a fucking commie! That explains the adherence to moronic ideas...

>>38844935
>Wrong
Nope, it's correct.
>X is not inherently X
I worded it wrong. The second good was more in the sense of pleasure being the ultimate "good".
>Ohh, you're a fucking commie! That explains the adherence to moronic ideas
Not a commie at all. I'll take advantage of people who already exist, like any good capitalist, but I certainly find it morally reprehensible to create new people to feed into the system on either end.

>>38844876
>We can choose to not be part of it
Sure. So can any other animal. They have the capability to climb somewhere high and jump down. They just don't. Just like humans don't.
Some penguins choose to leave their family, walk aways until they become exhausted and die. Look it up. Humans aren't the only ones capable of overriding the survival instinct.
>The measurement I was using was whether the creature could consciously act against its biological nature
Good. Means penguins and humans are both equal in this regard. And i'm sure there's tons of other species who commit suicide.
>we can change despite such conditioning
I want you to also look up videos of neuronal cell cultures under a microscope.
All brains are like that, regardless of the species. Which means most organisms can change, not just humans.

>>38844993
>Nope, it's correct.
Not even close.
>I worded it wrong. The second good was more in the sense of pleasure being the ultimate "good".
Because it assumes that 1. Pain and Pleasure will be equal in scope, 2. The actor lacks agency. It also mixes relative and absolute values which makes it meaningless.
Your entire philosophy fails on the fact that we have agency. Meaning that you can act to improve your life, or if you believe you can not improve your life and are currently suffering more than your are enjoying it, you can kill yourself.
Given that you've yet to do so, you're obviously retarded.

>Not a commie at all.
>I'm not happy, so one one should be allowed to be happy
>I'm not rich, so no one should be allowed to be rich.

>>38845140
>Not even close.
Vewy vewy close
>You're obviously retarded.
Not even close
>one one should be allowed to be happy
Nice mistype, you're obviously retarded.

>>38844876
>Pain is much more in abundance than pleasure and always will be
This is a disingenuous assumption. Do you experience pain or pleasure from a morning lunch, from watching movies, from talking to your friends, from arguing on the internet and from other little daily tasks? Do you have the aforementioned in abundance or scarcity? Does pain appear only as a bad outcome?
>The only way to bring the two to equilibrium would be to reduce them both to nothing
Feelings are immeasurable and thus cannot be compared as precisely as you did.

>>38845182
>Vewy vewy close
Not even close.
>Not even close
Vewy vewy close
>you're obviously retarded.
Not even close.

>>38845199
>Not even close
Close enough
>Vewy vewy close
not even close
>not even close
close enough

>>38845182
>reduced to nay-saying and reacting to grammar
Glad you've admitted defeat. Now either adhere to your philosophy and kill yourself or grow a brain and strive for ultimate benefit.

>>38845215
Whoops. I was the guy you were talking to, and I guess i am defeated :^ )

File: you_only_live_forever.png (230KB, 881x468px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 881x468px

Who here has experienced physical and mental "torture" simultaneously, or extreme chronic pain on its own? I've suffered pure hell of the former for 2 years. I don't mean "tfw no gf" classic robot """hell""", but I mean literally unbearable, relentless suffering that has lead me to cry multiple times a week as a man that never cries, constantly thinking about and seriously contemplating suicide because of it. If family weren't a part of the equation, I'd very likely end it.

Anyway, what I'm getting to is that few understand the limits of pain. There's some quotes from the movie Event Horizon
One is
>"You know nothing. Hell is only a word. The reality is much, much worse."
The other is something like (paraphrasing like fuck here)
>"There are levels of pain in my realm that you couldn't even begin to imagine"

There's a pain & suffering seal that few people have had broken. Most people don't know real suffering. I'm sure they do suffer, and it's still quite awful, but there's a line you can cross where you enter a realm of untold pain. Even to this day, I'm shocked, disgusted and terrified that it's possible. You think that when you burn your hand on a stove or scold it in some boiling water it's some kind of life error that quickly always and must get rectified, and then you move on forgetting all about it? Let me tell you the truth: it's a level of reality just as real and permanent as the one you live in now. In this reality, the pain receptors in your body will just keep going. Your will or expectations have no power there; the pain just is, and there will come a point in this life or the next where you have to face such an experience. Here's the kicker: these levels of pain and beyond are literally beyond your imagination. When you experience it, it will shock you to your core, because your expectation of the levels of pain you can experience is nowhere near reality.

cont.

(OC pic somewhat related)

>>38845768
We are in hell-bodies. Were they designed by an insane demiurge or genetically manipulated by extraterrestrials? I don't know. But anything that makes you think otherwise to the fact that we are all occupying a hell-body is a series of thought-based illusions; variables. Pain is a constant.

There probably exists incredible heavenly realms that are far beyond our imagination, but if we're caught up in a cycle as the Buddha said, it's far better to not exist. Nothing can balance out experiencing real hell-like pain and suffering. Far better to be nothing. That's all enlightenment is: eradicating yourself into oblivion, because overall, life appears to be incredibly awful.

File: EventHorizon.jpg (164KB, 1600x680px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 1600x680px

>>38845796
This can happen to any of us, right this second.

File: schopie.png (31KB, 662x166px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 662x166px

>>38842137
But I am anti-natalist, anon

>>38843466
>abstract philosophical argument
Not abstract at all, I wish I hadn't been born, therefore me imposing existence on someone else would be unethical on my part.

File: vanity of existence.png (98KB, 671x218px) Image search: [Google]

98KB, 671x218px

>>38846092
>tfw when your parents force you into existence
is there a worse feel in this universe?

File: 1499487388844.png (438KB, 800x1170px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 800x1170px

Has anyone else ever tried to explain anti-natalism to a normalfag? They simply don't understand, even though the logic is simple enough.

If by some miracle I get married and my wife wants kids, I'm going to convince her to adopt. That kid already exists, and you'd also be saving the kid from the nike sweatshops probably

File: schopieboi on existence.png (20KB, 321x400px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 321x400px

The main reason I despise normalfags isn't out of bitterness but out of disdain for their intentional continuation of human suffering (through reproduction), I mean you can't pretend to be a humanitarian who "wants human suffering to cease XDD" but then you go on and bring people into existence.

The worst culprits of this is are poor people, especially 3rd worlders, they seem to be excused for this because of their lack of education but it's only common sense to realize that if your life is filled with hardships, diseases, poverty and hunger then why bring more people into this life? We know why, they want them to take care of them when they're old. If that's not the most selfish, disgusting thought I don't know what is. I excuse no one of doing this. This is also why I give absolutely no shits about politics, don't talk to me about any delusional ideology that serves only as a band-aid to humanity's suffering when I already know the only actual solution to human's ethical AND material problems. Anti-natalism.

Because anti-natalism impinges on my desire to be emotionally and socially satiated, which can occu through having a family.

If nothing in the world matters than what moral imperative can convince me that absence or presence of suffering makes a difference? The only real thing at the end of the day is the new life that I spread from my loins.

>>38845768
>>38845796
>>38845963
Thanks for striking fear into my heart, anon. It's not that I didn't know this, but there's a huge difference between knowing something as information and feeling something as an experience. I needed this.

>>38846216
>If nothing in the world matters
fuck off nihilist brainlet, anti-natalism is literally contradictory to nihilism as it assigns an inherent negative value to existence, go have kids cunt

>>38846222
>Thanks for striking fear into my heart
It's not something I like to do, but the truth is the truth, and I feel we all ought to know so we can get ourselves the fuck out of this place.

>>38846277
I genuinely meant thank you in a nonsarcastic unironic manner. Like I said, I already knew this information, but it helps being reminded and getting your head put back on straight.

>>38846251
So if you attach so strong a value to material realm and the "suffering" we experience, you deny the value of life and joy it can bring, alongside with knowledge and wonders of the universe that we can experience.

Anti-natalism is a refusal to deal with one's petty problems and an attempt to pain the world black by denying yourself the gift of life. If the pain of existence were really so great, then all people on earth would have committed suicide the moment that we evolved consciousness. The reason why people do suicide themselves and anti-natalists are still around is because life in itself carries no positive or negative meaning and it is only your own subjective experience that paints it so.

Some people are unable to escape suffering, but does that deny their capacity for joy, or the possibility of leading realtively care-free lives?

Anti-natalists are morally skewed in that they seek to lessen pain by reducing the capacity to experience pain by ending life itself - that's like fixing a broken car by scrapping it wholesale.

>>38846311
No worries.

>getting your head put back on straight.
That's exactly what needs to be done. More so than anywhere else in the society of illusions and distractions we live in. We need to remove all the garbage in our individual lives, face up to the reality of life, try to enjoy it a bit in a way that doesn't create a lifestyle whereby you forget the reality of things, and work on getting out of this place by reading books on the nature of reality and I guess practising Buddhism/Taoism.

>Non-existence is preferable to life
>I haven't killed myself yet
Pick one, and only one.

>>38846414
Also, there are ways to remind yourself of the reality of pain and suffering. Occasionally, I hold my hand under scolding hot water for a few seconds longer than I can bear. It's not to torture myself, but to remind me of what life is easily capable of beyond my will and expectations.

>>38846461
>not existing at all = killing yourself
ISHYGDDT normo.

File: fight club soap burn.gif (359KB, 500x210px) Image search: [Google]

359KB, 500x210px

>>38846470
>I hold my hand under scolding hot water for a few seconds longer than I can bear

File: 1446824432607.jpg (117KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 1024x768px

>>38846407
>So if you attach so strong a value to material realm and the "suffering" we experience
Yes
>you deny the value of life and joy it can bring, alongside with knowledge and wonders of the universe that we can experience.
Where is this joy? What knowledge and wonders? We're talking about the average human, not the 0.1% exceptional person. You're telling me a kid born in the 3rd world whose chances of dying before they're 10 years old are great wouldn't have been better off not being born?

You're fucking delusional.

>If the pain of existence were really so great, then all people on earth would have committed suicide the moment that we evolved consciousness
Wrong, humans started out as animals, they will eventually reach the logical conclusion that is anti-natalism but the reason why humans haven't all committed suicide is because of the human instinct for survival, coupled with the relationships you develop with your family and other people once you're already born. It's not rational, of course some people have good lives but it's not worth the risk of bringing people who might wish to not have been born.

>Some people are unable to escape suffering, but does that deny their capacity for joy, or the possibility of leading realtively care-free lives?
Yes

>Anti-natalists are morally skewed in that they seek to lessen pain by reducing the capacity to experience pain by ending life itself - that's like fixing a broken car by scrapping it wholesale.
No, that's like fixing unending suffering by ending it.

>>38846461
Wrong, once you're born you have people you care about and who care about you, you also have the human instinct for survival, it's not even close to being the same as rationally wishing you hadn't been born.

>>38842137
You gotta be a real selfish sack of shit to bring a person into existence.

>>38846501
based

sdfdfgjdfgkljdfgblox

File: 1501075019313.jpg (137KB, 608x350px) Image search: [Google]

137KB, 608x350px

>>38846634
The moment someone described it as "the gift of life" I know I'm dealing with some delusional fuckhead. I had chemotherapy in December and during one of my shorter Bleomycin sessions this 15 year old girl was sitting next to me with brain cancer. I can't imagine someone telling me with a straight face that she wouldn't have been better off not having been brought into existence in the first place.

>>38846477
Suicide -> Nonexistence
Is the brief pain of suicide really too much of a threshold that you won't cross it in order to achieve relief of this horrible pain?

>>38846501
>you have people you care about
But their existence and the pleasures derived from those relationships are not enough to outweigh the pain of your existence, by your philosophy. Therefore Their existence is meaningless.
>and who care about you
You will die anyway, so you are only prolonging your suffering while avoiding the inevitable.
>human instinct for survival
Survival instinct is not rational, therefore not an argument. Even if it were an argument, if you are able to deny yourself the instinct to reproduce, you should be able to deny your instinct to survive.
>it's not even close to being the same as rationally wishing you hadn't been born.
Not being born == Nonexistence
Therefore the desire of not being born == desire to not exist.
Suicide -> Nonexistence == Not having been born
Therefore, suicide will fulfil your desires and is a rational choice to make.

>No, that's like fixing unending suffering by ending it.
ie suicide.

>>38846501
>You're telling me a kid born in the 3rd world whose chances of dying before they're 10 years old are great wouldn't have been better off not being born?

I'm saying my child born in a developed nation and raised by me will have likely more joy than the starving niglets. The difference is in that I know logically that their parents fucked up and can make a logical choice. By saying that ending life is the only fix is to equate everyone's circumstances, which is false.

>fixing unending suffering by ending it.
You interpret negative experiences in life (which are a product of your nervous system and your brain, not the universe) as fundamental evil, instead of being mere interpretations of reality by your body and warnings if you happen to do something that harms that body.

You are delusional by sitting over the idea that life is suffering and trying to explain ot to everyone, yet hypocritically claiming that survival and family bonds override that existential suffering - which is greater then ,desire to live and joy you get out of it, or the struggle to exist? You trust your brain to tell you that your experience is negative, yet others will tell you that they receive positive experiences. this is on top of the fact that we as humans can consciously will a different mindset and attitude into our lives through regular and repeated self-training and we are left with nothing but a lazy approach by depressed NEETS who try to explain to me that me having kids is making the world a worse place.

KYS, if you don't like life that much.

>>38846720
>she wouldn't have been better off not having been brought into existence in the first place.

No one's destiny is wirtten at the inception and her parents would never want her to have cancer when she was being born. We always hope for happiness of our families and thus pain is a random chance that cannot be willed away by totally negating life - that is again just as good as you doing the suicide right now, since you are suffering so much.

>>38846720
Based again.

>better off not having been brought into existence
Exactly how I've felt during my 2 years of suffering (I'm the hellposter).

Protip to lessen suffering as someone who's spent years researching alternative health and nutrition: chemotherapy and all of western medicine is absolute shit-tier and formulated to keep you sick and keep lining their pockets. 95% of disease is reversible, almost entirely through diet alone. Adopt the "The Recipe For Living Without Disease" diet.

>>38842137
I am.
>hurr durr kys if life is suffering
I don't believe life is suffering but I do acknowledge that some people suffer greatly in this life. I don't have the right to bring someone else into existence especially when they can't consent to the risks of life.
>if they don't like it then they can commit suicide
I wouldn't want them to have to make that decision in the first place. Suicide only seems like an option once the suffering is too much to bear. It would be selfish to sentence someone to life and later tell them to end it if they don't like it. I'm not a psychopath.

File: 1501345941172.jpg (67KB, 680x1020px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 680x1020px

>>38846732
>Is the brief pain of suicide really too much of a threshold that you won't cross it in order to achieve relief of this horrible pain?
No, it's the natural instinct for survival coupled with your love for your family and friends.

>But their existence and the pleasures derived from those relationships are not enough to outweigh the pain of your existence, by your philosophy.
Yes, which makes it immoral to bring more people into existence and would make it better not having been born, I don't know why this simple concept is confusing you so much.

>Survival instinct is not rational, therefore not an argument.
Something not being rational doesn't mean it's not real, friend. A good deal of human behavior is irrational and unethical.

>ie suicide.
ie human extinction, suicide only ends your own suffering, I'm talking about humanity's ethical and material problems as well as collective suffering

>>38846735
>will have likely more joy than the starving niglets.
Possibly, but your child also may wish you had never brought them into life. Therefore, your gambling with someone's life is unethical.

>You are delusional by sitting over the idea that life is suffering and trying to explain ot to everyone, yet hypocritically claiming that survival and family bonds override that existential suffering - which is greater then ,desire to live and joy you get out of it, or the struggle to exist?
My struggle to exist makes it unethical that i have been brought to life but my lack of conviction coupled with my instinct for survival and fear of death (which is not by any means the same as not being born) forces me to keep on living.

>You trust your brain to tell you that your experience is negative, yet others will tell you that they receive positive experiences.
As I already said, some people will be glad they were born, does that make it moral to gamble and bring people into existence that might wish they hadn't been born?

>>38846810
>>Protip to lessen suffering as someone who's spent years researching alternative health and nutrition: chemotherapy and all of western medicine is absolute shit-tier and formulated to keep you sick and keep lining their pockets. 95% of disease is reversible, almost entirely through diet alone. Adopt the "The Recipe For Living Without Disease" diet.
I've looked into that too but it wasn't really a choice, my parents would have none of that, this was the 2nd time I got cancer before i was 20. I'm hoping the next one I get is terminal desu

>>38846852
>No, it's the natural instinct for survival
Irrational, not an argument.
>coupled with your love for your family and friends.
Irrational, not an argument.
>I don't know why this simple concept is confusing you so much.
It's not. It's just not an argument...
>Something not being rational doesn't mean it's not real, friend.
Yes, but we're discussing philosophy. Either stick to rational arguments or fuck off with your fee-fees.
>I'm talking about humanity's ethical and material problems as well as collective suffering
You have no agency of humanity. You only have agency over you.
If you genuinely believe that humans (ie you) are better of not existing, then you would rationally commit suicide.
The fact that you don't is proof that you either don't actually believe in your own philosophy, or you're retarded enough not to understand that you have the agency to realise your desire.

It's perfectly simple logic. I really don't understand how this is confusing you...

>>38846852
>does that make it moral to gamble and bring people into existence that might wish they hadn't been born?

Morality in this framework only works if we care about morality in the first place, it being necessary for functioning of society - ergo making it a component of human life and experience. If you see end of suffering as the greatest good, not the maximization of joy, then any ethical or moral framework will become redundant as the final result of your line of thought is the end of human species and as such, end of any morality - to adhere to it now is hypocritical and illogical.

Here then we enter circular logic - either we adhere to some standards, which we effectively render obsolete with our actions, or we disregard them and create a world which necessitates existence of morals of some kind - you are driven to a paradox, or a point of complete nihilism - from there on any and all decisions become mere whims of the individual actors, including creation of life - and since it is my DNA that is being used, it is not far-fetched that the life I prolong is as much mine as it is my child's and my own life is as much mine as it was my parents - not only on biological plane, but also on social, material and emotional.

The benefit of non-existence does not bring any joy to anyone, it precludes any morals or experiences whatsoever, making the desire to eliminate suffering not only impossible but also logically tenuous - with absence of life that can experience and judge pain and scale it up ethically, you remove the need for such course of action.

tl;dr - anti-natalism rests on a paradox of adhering to human morals which it seeks to remove from existing.
>lack of conviction
No, it is simply you unable to reconcile the paradox and dropping serious adherence to your thought because it is easier not to do it, striking the point home even further.

>>38846968
>If you genuinely believe that humans (ie you) are better of not existing, then you would rationally commit suicide.
I genuinely believe that humans are better of not having been born, try to follow.

>>38847041
>The benefit of non-existence does not bring any joy to anyone
Of course, but it prevents suffering

>it precludes any morals or experiences whatsoever
morals only exists when humanity does, so of course existence is necessary for refusing to continue existence to be the only ethical standpoint

>No, it is simply you unable to reconcile the paradox and dropping serious adherence to your thought
No, it's death being different than not having been born.

>>38843484
pain's used primarily by the body to tell your conscious brain something's wrong, like cutting off the circulation in your foot or touching a hot iron. without pain, simple accidents like that could go unnotices and do incredible damage.

>>38842137
Because I'm not an edgy faggot. anti-natalists are fucking retards who can't comprehend the idea that most people actually enjoy being alive.

>>38847103
>existence is necessary for refusing to continue existence to be the only ethical standpoint
You failed to resolve the paradox, merely restated it without finishing the thought. Adherence to a self-abolishing ethic precludes necessity of adhering to it altogether, thus leaving me with an opposite (i.e standard life), or nihilism, which lets me do whatever, up to carrying on as I was.

Anti-natalism in its logical conclusion is based entirely on subjective and emotion-based reading of the world around you, with an attempt to address ethics without taking full impact of such arrangement onboard, thus it is illogical and faulty.

>>38847158
What good does pain do you when your arm is cut off? Are you going to fix the situation and put your arm back on to make it stop hurting?

>>38847190
No, but it lets you know a major limb of your body is missing, can be infected and you are suffering from a massive blood loss if this happens. You know, causes you to remove yourself from the source of your limb absence and forces you to address it somehow.

File: Get a load of this goy.jpg (16KB, 183x200px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 183x200px

>>38846898
>literally dying because your parents are brainwashed by modern jew medicine
I bet you're circumcised too.

File: 1494854461712.jpg (28KB, 400x396px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 400x396px

>>38847186
>You failed to resolve the paradox, merely restated it without finishing the thought
Because there isn't a paradox, the only adherence to it is admitting that bring people into existence is immoral, nothing more nothing less.

>Anti-natalism in its logical conclusion is based entirely on subjective and emotion-based reading of the world around you
Please, point me to any ethical theory that isn't like that

>>38847179
fuck off normalfag, go to your party

>>38847235
no I'm not an amerikike

File: downtheroad2pu.jpg (41KB, 420x309px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 420x309px

>>38847103
>>If you genuinely believe that humans (ie you) are better of not existing, then you would rationally commit suicide.
>I genuinely believe that humans are better of not having been born, try to follow.
Then you should commit suicide.
Be the change you want to see in the world and all that.
You can do it, I believe in you!

>>38847232
What about after it's all taken care of medically and you're just laying there in pain for weeks? Not to mention the fact that for most of the 500 million years modern life existed on Earth, there was nothing to do about such a major wound except wish you would die faster while you wither in agony.

File: 1494757974506.png (794KB, 748x471px) Image search: [Google]

794KB, 748x471px

>>38847274
>Then you should commit suicide.
The logical conclusion is to not have children, I don't know how you got to suicide. Then again for normalfags following logic isn't their forte.

>>38847312
>this is the mental ability of anti-natalists
Your position is that existence is suffering
Suffering is Bad.
Therefore, people are better off not existing.
You exist, therefore it would be a net benefit to stop existing.
You have the agency to stop existing by committing suicide.

Ergo
If anti-natalists were genuine, they would commit suicide.

>>38847274
>>38847365
Why would you kill yourself while you're experiencing pleasure if the reason your killing yourself is to avoid pain? Especially when it would be extremely painful.

>>38847365
>Your position is that existence is suffering
Wrong, but ok.

>Suffering is Bad.
True

>Therefore, people are better off not existing.
True

>You exist, therefore it would be a net benefit to stop existing.
Wrong, you exist, therefore it would have been better to not have been brought into existence. Once you're already born, there's other factors at play.

>You have the agency to stop existing by committing suicide.
True, and some people do that.

>Ergo
>If anti-natalists were genuine, they would commit suicide.
Wrong, if anti-natalists were genuine, they would not have children.

>>38847494
I don't know, anon, you seem like a big guy

The absence of pleasure is bad.

And you can't prove that non existence isn't some sort of purgatory. I'd rather take pleasure and pain then nothing at all.

>>38847524
If it's not purgatory then it's just as likely to be better than this world as it is to be worse

>>38842137
I'm not a brainlet

It's really telling how a train of thoughts as simple as this
>procreation is the root of all evil as there would be no evil without it
>therefore to procreate is objectively immoral
goes through normie brains and they come out with
BUT THEN KILL YOurRSEFL XD

File: 1459797152980.png (818KB, 787x672px) Image search: [Google]

818KB, 787x672px

>>38847596
pretty sure you are, you just don't know it

>>38847620
It's the source of all good too tho

>>38847508
>Wrong, but ok.
That's literally your stance, moron.
Life is suffering, therefore it is better to not bring new life into being.
If you don't hold that life is suffering, then why do you not want to being about new life?
>Once you're already born, there's other factors at play.
Those factors are irrelevant/irrational, as explained earlier.
The only relevant thing is that you believe that people are better off not existing than existing, so you should seek to end your existence.

>>38847620
Without life, there would be no evil.
Without being alive, you could not experience evil.
What reason do you have to not kill yourself?

>>38847668
Why are you being so agressive lol.

>>38844524
But inaction seems more natural since there is more to creating offspring than simply a choice between yes or no. You have to find and convince a mating partner, gather tons of resources and spend the majority of about 1.5 decades raising it. The choice to make offspring definitely involves more struggle

>>38847668
>That's literally your stance, moron.
No, it's not, saying that it's unethical to reproduce isn't the same as "life is suffering", I already stated multiple times that there's people who are glad they were born.

>If you don't hold that life is suffering, then why do you not want to being about new life?
Because it is inherently better to not be brought into existence

>Those factors are irrelevant/irrational, as explained earlier.
they're extremely relevant, although sometimes irrational which doesn't diminish their influence

>The only relevant thing is that you believe that people are better off not existing than existing, so you should seek to end your existence.
No, I should seek to educate other so as to not continue human suffering through procreation. I already exist so the damage has been done, plus the factors of my family and instinct for survival prohibit me from seeking suicide.

File: 1495851966259.jpg (82KB, 750x562px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 750x562px

>>38847668
>being a pissy little bitch
Newcomer to the scene here, I'll do you one better, I'm not killing myself because I want to see all of humanity wiped away along with all of creation, I have agency and I intend to awaken as many people as I can to the utter despair of humanity so that they either fix themselves before moving on or destroy all that is
More than the suffering, the utter depravity of it all must be culled by acceleration to its natural end, we must erase the potential for evil, not just evil itself

>>38842137
Pain isn't necessarily bad, it's your body and mind's way of telling you that shit needs to change.

>>38842137
Because anti-natalism is pussy shit
I want to get the ones already born too

File: 1501185245644.gif (1MB, 1154x587px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1154x587px

>Absence of pleasure: Not Bad
Absence of pleasure is perpetual boredom and despair. How is that not bad?

>>38847893
Did you not look at the image properly? Read the above line. It says absence of pleasure for something that does NOT exist isn't a bad thing.

>>38847698
>aggressive
I'm not. I'm sorry if comes out like that but I'm just arguing to the logical conclusion to anti-natalism.

>>38847841
>there's people who are glad they were born.
>it is inherently better to not be brought into existence
Do try to be consistent...
>they're extremely relevant, although sometimes irrational which doesn't diminish their influence
>irrational
>relevant in a discussion on ethics

>>38847846
At least you're rational...
>Existence is evil, therefore we must end existence.
Unlike these passive-aggressive pussies...
>Existence is evil, so we should prevent prevent existence to continue, but not actively combat it in any way.

File: 1447141016556.jpg (54KB, 640x623px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 640x623px

>>38847985
They're not wrong or passive-aggressive, they just have enough hope for the future that maybe someone else will fix it but are too far along the road of disgusted revulsion at reality that its binding chains rest light and loosely upon them
It is only time and experience that will put them to the point that I am at and then they will see that anthrocide is the only solution to the problems that vex their minds

>>38847279
It's so you continue to take care of it, don't use the limb too much and watch out for infection, idiot

>>38847985
>Do try to be consistent...
There's nothing inconsistent about it, some people are glad they were born, others not, that doesn't change the inherently negative value of existence.

>irrational
>relevant in a discussion on ethics
>let's completely disregard irrational human nature in our discussion of human ethics

>>38842137
I am op. Your "problem", however, is trying to get others to believe it. It's a personal choice and since the vast, vast majority of humans go with the flow and follow animal instinct without thought of consequences, it's easier to just do your part and end the suffering.

I'll admit, I had time to think about this because no woman wanted anything to do with me. That's fine and I'm not looking a partner or anything, but I honestly believe in MY case, it's the right choice.

I'm depressed, autistic, and whatever else is wrong with me. I can't in good faith have a kid and expect that child to enjoy life.

For some people, I do think it is the "moral" choice. Most people against the idea are what I'd call "normies" and will never see your point of view

>>38848024
The only problem with anthrocide is that everyone who supports it is too depressed to do anything to start it

Also it's really hard and illegal and the last people who tried it (Aum Shinrikyo) fucked up spectacularly

File: when the baby comes out and it's a girl.png (191KB, 250x300px) Image search: [Google]

191KB, 250x300px

>>38848024
Oh wait, you thought that when I say humanity must go extinct I don't mean through forced sterilization?

>>38847846
this fella gets it

>>38848107
*i agree OP

I am not OP

>>38848145
>pic
>filename
u cheeky cunt

>>38844653
Nice job strawmanning three different groups at once.