[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/his/ - History & Humanities


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: Antinatalism.jpg (60 KB, 850x400)
60 KB
60 KB JPG
Life is not a gift, but a burden.

We are embodied within a locus of bodily, social, and existential needs. All the good in this world relates in some way to the negation or substitution of one of these needs. The pleasure of eating requires hunger. The joy of learning requires ignorance. Hope itself is based in discontent.

What benefit is it to be born? To be burdened with some state of lack or dissatisfaction so that we may cheer on it's negation as the "good" in life? No child is born for it's own sake.

Let the unborn dwell on in noncondition, don't create burden, suffering, and lack where it need not be.
>>
>>6620883
i feel the perspective unpersuasive at best
>>
File: 1533189652256.png (1.34 MB, 2532x1366)
1.34 MB
1.34 MB PNG
>>6620883
>>
File: 1550674254339.png (107 KB, 500x397)
107 KB
107 KB PNG
OP is a fag
>>
>>6620893
Kek
>>
>>6620892
is this peak kek
>>
>>6620892
sheer autism
>>
>>6620883
>Life is not a gift, but a burden.

Okay, kys then.
>>
>>6620904
The way I see it, suicide doesn't end your pain, it just transfers your suffering onto your loved ones.

There is a big difference between creating a being that will suffer, and lethally harming yourself because you are already a suffering being.

Nobody is better off when somebody suicides, and it solves nothing. The problem here is the birth of the person who suffers so much he is driven to the act in the first place. No birth, no suffering, no recourse to suicide.
>>
>>6620923
why not convince your loved ones to mass suicide with you
>>
>>6620923
It leaves a massive pain , my older brother did it and it destroyed us all. My dad is really suffering atm so to all of you who are thinking about giving up dont be so selfish. Remember that your parents care and say if you need help.
>>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8x73UW8Hjk
>>
>>6620946
He suffered enough to take his own life, you're selfish too if you think that it was easy for him and that he should endure the pain for who knows how long just to keep you happy.
>>
>>6620952
Its a really complex issue and we miss them everyday , we all wish he had of just said something to us instead of going with the nuclear option.
>>
>>6620883
I'm not trolling and I sincerely mean the following.

What if your life just sucks because you're not good at being a person? Would you even have this belief if you had your shit together and lived an enjoyable life?
>>
>>6620958
Thats the point. Consider it from his angoe for a change. Speaking about how you'll wish this or that, while perfectly understandable, impkies its always about you'll and never him.

I know that not true, but it comes across that way. Honestly, this kind of self-centredness in people is why i myself wanted to go nuclear.

Dont worry im past that now, but i think expressibg this point may help curtail future attempts from others.
>>
>>6620972
Dumbass you are causing more pain than you are experiencing. YOU are being selfish. You are a part of a group, you owe it to them to not kill yourself and make your life worth living.

Or don't and erase your selfish weakling genes from the pool. Maybe we'll all be better off.
>>
>>6620966
All lives contain suffering, burden, aging, sickness, and we all die in the end. Some lives are worse than others, some are better, but they all contain the same 'structural' suffering.

It's just an inescapable fact of life that we have needs, that pain us when they aren't met, which we struggle to alleviate.

And I think it becomes quite clear when you study the history of the human project just how fucking awful the vast majority of people have had it.

And even regardless, lets say I am just a failure of a human, and most people are happy and life is good for them. Well then I know by my own example that a happy life is not guaranteed. Why risk creating another person that could suffer like me? Why take the gamble, when the dice doesn't need to be thrown? You are literally just gambling that the kid will be one of the happy ones, with no assurance. For no reason other than your own selfish desires. Children are not created for their own sake.

Anyway I think your argument is just stupid. Would you tell that to a starving yemeni? Or a person dying of cancer? Or a young african virgin getting gang raped as a cure for aids?

It's the same idea as poor people are poor due to their own fault, and therefore deserve it.
>>
>>6621030
Your whole beginning here is basically that all life involves suffering so it's not worth it. Life is a gift and many people out there would much rather be alive than not exist. You're ignoring those people completely.

To answer your other angle. if I lived in Yemen I wouldn't have children unless I could escape, but you don't live in Yemen.
>>
>>6620992
>you owe it to them
people who resort to killing themselves aren't usually in the best state of mind and hurt pretty bad, what they owe their family is to at least try their best to get out of the hole they're in, and talk about what they're feeling instead of leaving like a thief in the night. If all fails blaming them and calling them selfish makes YOU selfish since you minimize their suffering and would want them to "just live breh :)"
>>
>>6621058
>what they owe their family is to at least try their best to get out of the hole they're in
That's exactly what I'm saying. We don't disagree.
>>
>>6620892
based spreadsheet bro
>>
>>6620888
Stfu you retarded kike
>>
>>6621040
I can see your huge nose from here
>>
File: xavier.jpg (112 KB, 513x768)
112 KB
112 KB JPG
>>6620883 (OP)
>Let the unborn dwell on in noncondition, don't create burden, suffering, and lack where it need not be.
Nonsense, the unborn doesn't "dwell", it doesn't act, it doesn't exist and doesn't have experiences. You can't compare existence and non-existence. It's like saying that the current King of France is happier than you.
>>
File: 1327464631606.jpg (67 KB, 641x427)
67 KB
67 KB JPG
>>6620883
>Thoughts on antinatalism?
Antinatialists always resort to arguing in absolutes. States of being which we humans rarely experience.

>To justify existence we must experience absolute pleasure in a unspecified ratio to absolute pain.
To which a antinatialist would argue that even if we lived in a MDMA infused existence of pleasure and comfort 99.9% of our lives, they would still argue that stumping your toe against a table leg would justify the end of human existence.

Antinatialism isnt as much a set of beliefs as it is a thought experiment 120 IQ pseuds like to throw in the face of people to showcase their "superior" intellect.
>>
>>6621455
>States of being which we humans rarely experience.
t. a middle class kid
>>
>>6621503
>Antinatialists always resort to arguing in absolutes
>theres poor starving kids in africa
Thanks for proving my point.
>>
>>6621030
>You are literally just gambling that the kid will be one of the happy ones, with no assurance. For no reason other than your own selfish desires. Children are not created for their own sake.
I am saying this without irony or sarcasm. You are a worthless fucking coward and the world would be better off without you if you believe this. If the thing which stops you from attempting anything is a chance of failure- not a certainty, or even a likelihood, but the merest chance- then you are pathetic in ways which words cannot even hope to describe.
>>
File: 1557353157227.jpg (97 KB, 520x600)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
>>6621528
Remind me, how many % of people today live in total poverty? How many don't have access to clean water? How many live in territories plagued by war and disease?
>>
File: 1556089927079.jpg (237 KB, 727x868)
237 KB
237 KB JPG
>>6620892
Holy shit
>>
>>6621569
>how many % of people today live in total poverty?
Less and less by the hour.
>>
>>6621554
Even if this is true, who cares what the world is better off with or without? This planet is a hellhole. "Pathetic." Nigga, the human race is pathetic. That is one of its defining characteristics
>>
>>6621592
"Our World in Data" is a Bill Gates funded psyop

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jan/29/bill-gates-davos-global-poverty-infographic-neoliberal
>>
File: 1543888833873.jpg (97 KB, 500x631)
97 KB
97 KB JPG
>>6621592
>476 million people lived in total shit a year ago
>1,9 billion people lived in total shit 30 years ago
How does it prove your point in any way?
It's a fuckhuge % regardless of whether it's decreasing and you have to keep in mind that improvement of life quality is a very modern phenomenon.
>>
>>6621623
>Jason Hickel
This is an opinion piece from a hack academic.
>Prior to colonisation, most people lived in subsistence economies where they enjoyed access to abundant commons – land, water, forests, livestock and robust systems of sharing and reciprocity. They had little if any money, but then they didn’t need it in order to live well
Holy shit lmao, what an idiot.
>So what happens if we measure global poverty at the low end of this more realistic spectrum – $7.40 per day, to be extra conservative? Well, we see that the number of people living under this line has increased dramatically since measurements began in 1981, reaching some 4.2 billion people today.
If you increase the standard for poverty reduction, the poverty rate goes up? What a shocking insight! Even using higher measures the rate had gone down.
>Moreover, the few gains that have been made have virtually all happened in one place: China. It is disingenuous, then, for the likes of Gates and Pinker to claim these gains as victories for Washington-consensus neoliberalism. Take China out of the equation, and the numbers look even worse
This meme again https://ourworldindata.org/the-global-decline-of-extreme-poverty-was-it-only-china
>>
>>6621623
>socialist professor cant handle capitalism actually has it's upsides and not only downsides, argues semantics, completely ignores the 5 other graphs Gates posted and pushes his latest book.
Wonderfull, just wonderfull.

And btw, why are you even essentially arguing that since there's people in the world who are poor and starving, middle class people of the west should stop to reproduce?

It's like there is no specific set limit to where existence reaches a acceptable standard of living to where it is justified.
Again, you're only resorting to extremes to prove your thought which only further proves my point.

>>6621639
>and you have to keep in mind that improvement of life quality is a very modern phenomenon.
Oh sorry, let me jump into my time machine and convince people in 1723 to not have children since they didnt know how bad they had it.
>>
File: DlNngBxV4AEH5uM.jpg (120 KB, 1200x847)
120 KB
120 KB JPG
>>6621623
Read the comment section lamo, they are calling this fake news.
>>6621675
Yeah, I hate these anti-progress idiots. Even using higher poverty standards things have gotten better.
>>
>>6621623
>"Well, we see that the number of people living under this line has increased dramatically since measurements began in 1981, reaching some 4.2 billion people today"
>"dramatically"
>doesn't provide a graph or a percentage of increase
>absolute numbers instead of percentage
Absolute trash. I want to remind everyone seeing the graph that there are now 3 billion more people than in 1981.
>>
>>6621602
>This planet is a hellhole.
Not for me, and not for many others. You have failed at life and so assume all others will too, therefore nobody else should ever be allowed to exist. Kill yourself.
>>
>>6621623
Not a big fan of CATO, but this Hickel guy is a politically motivated fool. https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/leftists-are-trying-muddy-waters-falling-global-poverty
>>
>>6620942
This is much harder than you think! See, I was pretty close, but then my brother met this girl and now he wants, marry her and have kids.
>>
>>6620883
This philosophy is only possible in a fecund, secure existence. That man wasn't naked, starving, and fighting for survival when he expounded his thoughts.
>>
>>6621737
that's just another soul to convince, anon
>>
>>6621554
If you're miserable it's likely that your offspring will also be miserable.
>>
Anti natalism is the ultimate truth, you need to be low iq or rich to breed.
>>
>>6622084
If your situation is intractably shit then that's one thing. If you're poor and starving then yes, by all means antinatalism is a great idea. Nobody in the Yemeni civil war should be trying for a child.
The issue comes when people try to impose antinatalism on others, convince them to not have children, which was the premise of this entire thread, that antinatalism is inherently good.
>>
>>6620892
>birth video leaked to porn website
>>
>>6620923
>suicide doesn't end your pain, it just transfers your suffering onto your loved ones.

Then all you have to do is get rid of your loved ones. Whether you kill them all or ruin your relationship with them to the point that they never want to see you again, now suffering won't be transferred to them when you kill yourself. That's all assuming the person has loved ones in the first place.

Best way to commit suicide is to ensure that it will be unnoticed or that your death will be quickly forgotten as if you never existed.
>>
>>6620904
>>6623262
Most major religions believe that suicide will enhance your suffering and there's really no compelling reason to believe that death will end your suffering.
>>
>>6620883
>that quote
no surprise that Jews hate life
>>
>>6620883
We only know life and as far as we know this is the best we are going to get, antinatalist just assume non existance is better
>>
>>6621431
Based Xavier post.
>>
>>6620883
>Life is not a gift, but a burden.

So relieve yourself of this burden and fucking die already.
>>
>>6621058
Not him but I agree with you and him. I see this argument often about which party is the selfish one, when truthfully they’re both selfish in their own way. Obviously nobody wants a person to suffer, and people are capable of understanding that a suicidal person is indeed suffering. Their suffering is real when a suffering person commits suicide. Is their suffering not justified simply because the person that died was also suffering? Hard argument to make. And to the person who committed suicide, they are indeed selfish for bringing that pain onto the ones who will continue to live. Their suffering is also valid in the face of others suffering. Both are selfish for different reasons, both suffer, neither party should point fingers as to which is more or less selfish since even if there were an answer to that (there isn’t), the answer wouldn’t solve anything anyways.
>>
>>6621554
Firstly, you are needlessly angry. Secondly,
>If the thing which stops you from attempting anything is a chance of failure- not a certainty, or even a likelihood, but the merest chance- then you are pathetic in ways which words cannot even hope to describe.

If you actually read the post I was replying to, you would see that actually I don't think it's a small chance of 'failure' (as in, the creation of harm where it need not exist), but rather a 100% guaranteed fact of life. It is indisputable that all children, in the very best of cases, will have biological, social, and existential needs, that will cause discomfort when not met. These children will grow up, age, get sick, and then eventually die. It's a brute fact of all lives. Hunger, shelter, aging, sickness, death. If it makes me a "coward" to choose not to inflict this suffering where it need not exist, then I will proudly wear the badge.
>>
>>6621040
>Your whole beginning here is basically that all life involves suffering so it's not worth it. Life is a gift and many people out there would much rather be alive than not exist. You're ignoring those people completely.

Firstly, no child exists to 'gift' life to. And secondly, no I'm not ignoring those that want to still exist. Even I myself want to still exist. I mostly enjoy life. But I recognize that once one is already alive there are a huge number of reasons and drives for why we still desire to exist. But this thread is not about ending lives, but the prevention of lives being started.

>many people out there would much rather be alive than not exist

So, necessarily, not all people. Again, why take the gamble?

>To answer your other angle. if I lived in Yemen I wouldn't have children unless I could escape, but you don't live in Yemen.

So you are an antinatalists for yemeni's, but not for westerners? Here, you have admitted that the conditions of (at least some) lives are bad enough for it to be better to choose not to start them. The antinatalist is the same, just with a broader scope. All the world is Yemen, in a sense. We all live lives where the conditions were not good enough for them to be started. Of course, already having been born we desire continued existence (mostly due to evolutionary drives, or just a concequence of the striving for biological homeostasis), but this is not about us, but those that are still to be.
>>
>>6621431
>Nonsense, the unborn doesn't "dwell", it doesn't act, it doesn't exist and doesn't have experiences. You can't compare existence and non-existence. It's like saying that the current King of France is happier than you.

I can quite happily talk about counterfactual scenarios and people can easily understand me. It is just your autistic literalism that causes you to treat poetic language as literally meaning there are little unborn beings actually existing, and yet waiting to be plucked (or not) into the world through mommy and daddies lovemaking.

The fundamental issue here is, should we create beings with perpetual needs, that suffer, age, and die? Why?
>>
Or to put it a different way, it is only when one has a vested interest in "continuance" in some way (be that, ones relationship with partner, ones bloodline, ones nation, the human project, ones religion, etc) that the desire for children even arises.

And it is through and for these desires (among many, many others) that children are brought into being. No child is had for it's own sake. Nobody sees the human condition, and through the pureness of their own heart decides to selflessly 'gift' the conditions of human existence onto this being, for it's sake. There is always some selfish, personal aim just underneath the surface. I want to be a mother, who will look after me? it will strengthen our relationship, pastor says to multiply, it's just what one does, I forgot to use a condom, mom wants grandkids. The list goes on.
>>
>>6620892
I don't think antinatalists can recover from this
>>
>>6621740
Do you have a point? All human activies, including philosophy, require one is not naked and dying, eating barks and roots.
>>
>>6623750
Why do so many responses in this thread have this same theme?

Some sort of rabid anger, suggesting suicide or that the antinatalist is in some way weak, or a failure, or a coward?

I imagine these are the same people who think the same thoughts about those lost to suicide. It's probably rooted in some base evolutionary instinct, to lash out in this way.

I know it's not just because I'm on 4chan, I've gotten this same sort of response when bringing up the philosophy elsewhere. People really get worked up over it, and lash out not at the philosophy, but at the person expounding it. As if to question the worth of life is to spit in the face of god or some such nonsense.
>>
>>6620966
>What if your life just sucks because you're not good at being a person
All DNA based lifeforms are wired to suffer constantly. It is what drives us to do things. The only people who aren't aware of this are bugmen, but they still suffer.
>>
File: 1555042245214.gif (7 KB, 329x302)
7 KB
7 KB GIF
>>6620883
>dude life is suffering lets just die lmao
Legit a fucking meme sense of thought. I remember when I thought this shit was right. Just accept the pain of the word and live on. Also btw absurdist here.
>>
this >>6625319
Antinatalism is just myopic reductionism, suffering sucks and ending life would end all suffering, but there is more to life than that.

I am not an absurdist but I accept the limits of reason, especially the very poor reasoning of OP.
>>
>>6620952
Lol you're a retard. I would of killed myself already if you had your way, and I'm not suicidal anymore
>>
Then kill yourself and get your gay ideology off the earth

>B-but My death would cause suffering!!!!

Then kill them also, or tell them you´re disapiring and kill yourself in the middle of the forest, but we both know you´re just an edgy contrarian fag, hopefully after you´re 18 you´ll grow out of it
>>
>>6625252
Becouse it´s fucking retarded? the literal maximum expresion of your """ideology""" is to reject life, a then you get mad that people tell you to act on that belief? and if you say "but my death will bring sadness too my loved ones" then convince them, killed them or lie to them, but you´ll just look for excuses becouse not even you fully belive in that """ideology"""
>>
>>6620883
that's all well and good but the only way to really have this implemented would be through force. you're not going to convince the masses to stop following their primal instincts through facts and logic. the only way would be enforced sterilization or genocide. good luck getting your fascist antinatalist state i guess.
also, suffering on the earth is just a small microcosm of the eternal, infinite suffering of the multiverse. you'll never be able to fully end suffering.
>>
>>6625192
let's break this down a little to make it more difficult for you to commit logical fallacies, let "those that are still to be"/"a nonexistant child" be called springles, according to you...

springles that would not want to exist (after being born) do matter
springles that would want to exist don't matter

if neither matter it is not a crime to bring them into existence

if both matter it is wrong to deny happy people existence because 1 might be unhappy

>why take the gamble?
if it is wrong to bring 10 happy people into existence for every 1 unhappy person, this is another debate between utilitarian and deontological ethics

it is a question of whether it is justified to do good at the risk of doing something bad, we make choices like this all the time, you might get hit by a car while crossing the road (or crossing the road with your child, let's say, to make this about you making a choice for someone else), but people cross the road all the time because the good outweighs the bad, surely it is little different when deciding whether to bring a life into the world

you are saying it is such a heinous sin to bring an unhappy person into the world that it justifies humanity waltzing into extinction, I'd say no, it isn't, the good outweighs the bad
>>
If all pleasure is the result of pain and discontent, that doesn't make pleasure bad or meaningless. It only means there is a value to pain. In order to understand pleasure, in order for it to have meaning, there must be a concept of pain, discomfort, or unfulfilled need. It is through these desires that the mechanical elements of body and mind are pushed out into the world, in order to right those wrongs. It is because of those desires, therefore, that we have the priviledge of understanding life and the priviledge of a capable mind and body. Without them, we would be soft, pathetic things living utterly meaningless lives. Human slugs, brains rotting in their heads from underuse.
>>
>>6625797
>if it is wrong to bring 10 happy people into existence for every 1 unhappy person

You've got it completely backwards. 80-90% of people that existed in almost every society in history lived lives that were miserable by objective standards.

>>6625822
Pain and discontent don't just exist as concepts that give pleasure meaning for most people. Most people in history have been forced to live lives of pointless suffering.
>>
>>6625319
>life contains suffering, we should really take procreation seriously in terms of it's morality

BRO JUST PUSH ROCKS LMAO #YOLO
>>
>>6625797
>surely it is little different when deciding whether to bring a life into the world

entirely different. People crossing roads already exist, and have their own ends and aims (based in suffering, that can either be thwarted or met). Procreation involves the creation of the capacity for ends and aims. Entirely different kettle of fish.

>if both matter it is wrong to deny happy people existence because 1 might be unhappy

Nothing exists to be denied. There are no no-existent people suffering because they aren't being brought into being. Nobody is harmed by not being born, and yet everyone born suffers harm.
>>
>>6625623
>Becouse it´s fucking retarded? the literal maximum expresion of your """ideology""" is to reject life, a then you get mad that people tell you to act on that belief?

It is a separate issue whether to end current lives, and start new ones. To "act on that belief" in terms of antinatalism is not to suicide, but merely not to procreate.

To walk out of a movie halfway through, is a different issue entirely than forcing other people to watch with you. Perhaps you think one entails the other. I don't. I am already vested within this movie, I am already in the theater, I've paid my ticket, it's not that bad. But why on earth would I force someone else to sit beside me and suffer the shitty flick?
>>
>>6620904
>>6620942
>>6623262
>>6623750
>>6625580
>>6625623
>According to Schopenhauer, moral freedom — the highest ethical aim — is to be obtained only by a denial of the will to live. Far from being a denial, suicide is an emphatic assertion of this will. For it is in fleeing from the pleasures, not from the sufferings of life, that this denial consists. When a man destroys his existence as an individual, he is not by any means destroying his will to live. On the contrary, he would like to live if he could do so with satisfaction to himself; if he could assert his will against the power of circumstance; but circumstance is too strong for him.
>>
>>6621592
>get 60$ a month
>According to the world in data i have a comfortable decent existence now !
People in the 1st world have extremely shitty lives with much more money per month it all depends on the costs of living not how much you make.
>>
Having kids is overrated and the effort required to be a good a good parent is vastly underrated. People should be aware of the daunting and time consuming task of being a good parent before choosing to have kids.

"Antinatalism" is just some pretentious term.
>>
>>6625252
They probably thinks it's a personal attack of some sorts, I had a friend who would do this shit it's like he couldn't hear anything that disagreed with his worldview and he'd go out of his way to be a dick about it regardless of being proved wrong or not the more you argued back the more of a dick he'd be about it.... then he'd make up points he didn't believe or constantly try and find contradictions (always the fucking dumbest ones) in anything I said
>>
>>6620892
>is this archived?
>>
File: essaysonpessimism1.jpg (765 KB, 1160x868)
765 KB
765 KB JPG
>>6620883
>>6620892
based

>>6620888
>>6620893
cringe
>>
>>6625319
>dude just accept it instead of actually ending the cycle of suffering
how does it feel to be brain damaged
>>
>>6626277
It is a personal attack to tell someone their life is worthless and that it’s be better if they didn’t exist.

It’s also perfectly valid to point out that a person who doesn’t want to be alive may just be depressed or genuinely suck at life. It’s sour grapes of the highest order.
>>
>>6620883
Kids are annoying
>>
Why don't antinatalists just kill themselves already instead of sticking around spouting their pseud bullshit so that everyone else will want to do it first?
>>
>>6626930
Because anti-natalism is bullshit and they’re just whiny bitches
>>
>>6620992
i wouldn't necessarily say that's true, you don't know what's going on inside of any given person on the planet. someone could theoretically be suffering immensely, and much more than the pain that loss can cause
>>
>>6626983
They could get their shot together instead, I believe your angle is not true in most cases.
>>
>>6623735
oo, frittata!
>>
File: 15546962522370.jpg (134 KB, 809x1182)
134 KB
134 KB JPG
1)Death is bad.
2)Life(a good one) is good.
3) Life is finite while death is eternal.
4) Eternal bad outweighs finite good.
5) There is nothing bad or good if you were not born.
6) It is better not to be born.
>>
>>6627052
No thanks I like being alive
>>
>>6627052
but if you're not born you're dead
>>
>>6627063
How can you be dead if never were alive?
>>
>>6627057
Of Course it is better to be alive then to be dead, but never have been is better of both.
>>
>>6626946
this, they'll ALWAYS come up with an excuse, even the religious angle (ironically enough) all of a sudden >>6623375
just to wave away the fact that they are simply a bunch of failed miserable fucks with an edgy philosophy to justify the emptiness in their lives and project it unto others. how much of a difference is there between a neonazi, discord tranny, incel from /r9k/ and antinatalists?
>>
>>6627084
Dude I don’t think you understand. I’m happy that I exist and am alive. It’s much better than not existing. I think some of you guys are so depressed that you forget many people consider life a gift.
>>
>>6626992
i don't disagree with you. i think most cases it's selfish and wrong, but i do think there are outlier situations where suicide is the best option in spite of the potential impact on others
>>
>>6627114
How is it ironic to be religious and oppose the proliferation of suffering? Personally I don't exactly believe that people who honestly love their lives shouldn't breed, so the accusations that antinatalists project their beliefs onto happy people isn't true in all cases. My problem is the fact that miserable people that don't enjoy life choose to reproduce despite knowing that their offspring will suffer just like them. For some people there almost seems to be a certain level of malice of spitefulness where they actually want to reproduce just so that they can force someone to suffer as they've been forced to suffer, some of these sorts of people even have the nerve to claim that life is a gift.
>>
File: the buddha approves.jpg (78 KB, 959x539)
78 KB
78 KB JPG
>>6626227
/thread

Antinatalism should be a general rule, not an absolute. Life will continue to create itself, but that's no reason to breed needlessly.
>>
>>6627160
>I'm happy so I should force other people to be happy

You can't make other people happy, especially people who don't exist.
>>
>>6627667
>For some people there almost seems to be a certain level of malice of spitefulness where they actually want to reproduce just so that they can force someone to suffer as they've been forced to suffer,

My dad is a perfect example of this.
"Son, everything I went through you will go through" he once said to me. I hate that motherfucker.
>>
>>6620946
Thats not done, first bring to existence, them emotionally manipulate to keep them alive. Your brother honestly expressed himself, you should be at peace.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.