Discussion How many suicidal people here are anti-natalists?

[thewalkingdread]

I think our views are so bias because we are all here and are now suffering extensively

In principle, a "depressed", traumatized, person's worldview isn't in any way "more biased" than a "happy", non-traumatized, person's worldview. We are all biased by our lives experiences, no matter how. Bias by itself is not a very good criterion...

I feel that the more we know and learn about the truth of humanity ( the ugly truth) then the worse our world view becomes. The more awake I became the more I wished I could turn back to ignorant bliss. I think the more ignorant and blinkered you are, the happier your life.

But I would argue that a "happy", "positive" worldview can actually be worse and have wider bad/destructive results due to — actively — ignoring adverse consequences... People with this mindset tend to assume more risks than otherwise. I think the depressive realism thesis is somewhat true, although it's very, very hard to effectively demonstrate It.

And, to be fair, I don't even think this pure "happy", non-traumatized, person is a realistic construct. It's a dellusional belief. Everyone, at somepoint, will suffer from traumas and face "depression" and disillusionment.

 

[Justnotme]

I'm definitely against bringing new people into this world. I don't want anyone to see what terrible suffering animals, birds, fish, people and other living organisms can experience.
There is no point in continuing the family in such a world.
I don't think that birth is life. No, not in such a terrible world, where the terrible essence of nature lies behind the external beauty of nature

 

[Jolene79]

In principle, a "depressed", traumatized, person's worldview isn't in any way "more biased" than a "happy", non-traumatized, person's worldview. We are all biased by our lives experiences, no matter how. Bias by itself is not a very good criterion...



But I would argue that a "happy", "positive" worldview can actually be worse and have wider bad/destructive results due to — actively — ignoring adverse consequences... People with this mindset tend to assume more risks than otherwise. I think the depressive realism thesis is somewhat true, although it's very, very hard to effectively demonstrate It.

And, to be fair, I don't even think this pure "happy", non-traumatized, person is a realistic construct. It's a dellusional belief. Everyone, at somepoint, will suffer from traumas and face "depression" and disillusionment.

You make a very good point very articulately. I think on some level we all know the truth but choose to repress it. On some level that has an effect even if we aren't aware of it.

Everyone suffers at some point. I do believe many are however relatively content with happiness interspersed into it. I do find it hard to believe we aren't a little biased on here as a result of our particularly difficult experiences.

 

[thewalkingdread]

we all know the truth but choose to repress it

Yes, most people "choose" to live in denial. Because that's what keeps them walking "the walk"...

 

[Jolene79]

Yes, most people "choose" to live in denial. Because that's what keeps them walking "the walk"...

Yes definitely. I really on a conscious level did not ever question it you know. The experiences and certain treatment by so called loved ones I repressed. The system we live in , schooling, slaves to the work machine, I never doubted or questioned. All of this took me some time to really see. I felt happier before but there was some sort of niggling inside and it was probably that I knew the truth.

 

[bigfishlittlefish]

Yes. There are too many people on this planet already. Shared DNA isn't what makes "family" - that's something far more intangible. I have family that I have no biological connection to, and people I have a biological connection to that I would never use the word "family" to describe.
I think fostering/adoption is such a wonderful thing to do. You're taking in a child at a point in their life where they're probably experiencing trauma of some degree, and you're giving them shelter, stability, safety. I can't think of anything more noble than that.

 

[Mistiie]

That response was a cluster fuck. Let's dissect it.

Yes.This is a true statement. Many people above have made this gross mistake. But why did they do it?! Why are people equating 'anti-natalism' with being 'childfree'?! Because being childfree is an easier-to-swallow black pill... it comes without the moral judgment present in anti-natalism.

Fallen into the pitfall of "Everyone's views must be like mine." Turns out people are childfree for varying reasons and might have children in the future if the conditions to foster such a thing improve to the point where minimal suffering is caused. Go figure.

It also turns out that childfree is wholly different from anti-natalism even when compared with 'childfree' people who don't want children because they think that their conditions will cause more suffering for the child that isn't necessary. Note the "their" part. They don't see births in general, or procreation in general, as a negative thing. They see procreation between flawed individuals who will ultimately maximise negative aspects of a life for a child as being cruel, not the whole process between every living organism on Earth.

Don't compare being childfree with anti-natalism. I'm sure there are childfree anti-natalists, but it's like comparing apples and oranges and saying they're the same thing cause they're both fruits. Look at them under a lens and you'll find they result in similar outcomes for entirely different reasons. It doesn't come with the moral judgement because there isn't moral judgement to be had, because it's an entirely different fucking process.

Also, I had to look up what blackpill meant since I've never heard of it and I got redirected to a redirect link on Wikipedia with this:

The black pill ideology, a fatalist set of beliefs related to the incel ideology.

I'm sure this will be a reasonable and not completely insane debate.

This is a 'pro-choice' and 'suicidal ideation' support forum. This means people here are aware and care more about free will than just passing moral judgment/condescension on others (hence the "pro-choice" label). And, also, they want to be supported and to support others, like themselves, who have had the misfortune of coming to the same, ill fated, crossroads between continuing living a miserable life or stoping it already — because enough is enough.

Free will but only when I want to die. Child wants to live? Tough shit lmao

So, perhaps, anti-natalists are refraining from asserting their hard-to-swallow anti-natalist views out of respect for all the natalists, like you, cohabitating in this forum. As you recognized yourself, you are a minority in here. You should look at those statistics and reflect carefully why this is the case.

not sure how this is relevant but ok
It also seems like people choose anti-natalism not because they're actually anti-natalist, but because they think anti-natalism is what they believe in when in reality they're equating a suicidal nature and the desire to not be born with anti-natalism, which is very stupid and warrants a hearty chuckle from whatever audiences they come across in their life. But we can get onto what anti-natalism is later, I'm sure you mentioned it at some point...

I will be audacious and state that all — and I really mean ALL — the people in this forum, with their diverse life backgrounds, if they were given the option between (1) Killing themselves or (2) Never being born, they would choose (2) because it's always "better" never to have been in the first place. For suicidal people, this is what anti-nalism truly means. (And that should include you, despite your reluctance against it.)

thewalkingdread makes worst take ever, asked to leave SaSu
This is seriously one of the stupidest things I've ever read. You literally replied to my comment with numerous instances of people falling into the "People must think like me." pitfall trap and then did it yourself.
How do I know you fell into the "People must think like me." fallacy? Because I don't think like that. I would much rather have lived and died when I desired than to never be born. It's not always "better" to have never been in the first place.

Let's set up an example for this just for you to comprehend where and how this falls apart.
Person A is a suicidal, 30 year old man on SaSu. He's had a rather tough life. No wife, no kids, dead parents. Tragic life all around, sees himself as an anti-natalist, wants to die. Big woop.
Person B is a 80 year old grandpa, has 3 kids, a wife, and has lived a moderately successful life. Just an alright one. Held down jobs, settled in the suburbs, all that. But he just got diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. Terminal. Quite sad. He's joined this forum called "SaSu" to learn how to die, not because life has been suffering, but because it will be if he doesn't do it then.
You see the difference here? Not everyone's life is inherently awful just because they're suicidal. Person A and B are both recognised as suicidal but Person B's life actually has been better to have been than to not have been, even if Person A's hasn't. Again, both suicidal. Both SaSu users. You highlight that people have diverse life backgrounds and then completely lob that idea into the trash and say that everyone thinks just like you and other 'anti-natalists' and therefore think it would have been better not to have been than to have. You were this close to realising that different experiences result in different values held on an individual's own life, and yet you missed it.

Not to mention, you completely get the definition of anti-natalism wrong. I finally get to give you the definition of anti-natalism, per Wikipedia:

Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction — they consider coming into existence as bad or deem procreation as immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children.

There's a glaring issue between your definition of 'anti-natalism' and what the actual definition is.

Your definition of anti-natalism defines it as being better not to have been born than to have been, because life is suffering.
The actual definition of anti-natalism defines life as being suffering for some people, but happiness for the majority. That potential suffering means that people shouldn't procreate because you could be causing negative things, even if it's overwhelmingly positive.

The former definition doesn't acknowledge these ideas at all, and the latter doesn't acknowledge the idea of not being born as being better than having been. It simply acknowledges that being born can lead to suffering, not that it always is. It especially doesn't say that people would prefer being unborn to death. That willingness to be unborn stems from not wanting to suffer in life, which is an entirely different topic of discussion than not wanting things to be born because they could suffer. I'll give you this, it's an easy distinction to miss; I nearly did it myself, but it's very important and it shows that basically everyone here talking about 'anti-natalism' is instead expressing the desire to not have suffered in life. They express these thoughts through the desire to be unborn, but in reality, if you mitigated all the suffering in their life through other means, they would be just as happy, if not happier; after all, there is no happiness in nothingness. Anti-natalism for SaSu users is just an outlet for their wish to have had a better life, and more often than not, this is what they would opt for if given the third option, that is, to not just kill themselves or to be unborn, but to remedy their every mistake and become a better version of themselves. Those who do hold actual fragments of anti-natalist ideologies here do a bit of both, but that makes it even worse, because more often than not they are ignorant towards the truth of the matter; most people's lives are at the very least neutrally positive, if not positively positive. Not everyone's life is as miserable as yours, and to want to prevent births would be causing more suffering to those that are alive than to those who are yet to be born.

TL;DR: SaSu anti-natalism is wanting to avoid suffering by not being born and also believing that everyone suffers. The former is a fallacy and if you went back in time and stopped all suffering in their lives, they would be none the wiser, and the latter is just downright wrong.

No, no, no. That's not how anti-natalism is defined.

It's an exaggeration, but it gets the general concept across. And it basically is how it's defined. Given that you messed up your own definition of anti-natalism, as did other people here, I don't need to go into any further detail on this comment of yours.

You are "strawmaning" the thesis you want to refute by grossly misconstruing it. And you are furthering the rethorical falacy by ascribing to anti-natalists a hateful stance, suggesting that hating something, which is considered by a majority a natural thing — i.e. procreating —, is irrational.

It's not a strawman if I'm attacking an exaggerated yet still generally accurate version of the argument...it's just an exaggeration. There's a difference.
Not to mention, anti-natalists do have a hateful stance towards procreating. I don't think you understand what anti-natalism is if you don't think this is true. From the anti-natalist's point of view, with procreation comes the creation of life. With the creation of life comes an inevitable suffering amongst all organisms. Anti-natalists detest this suffering, hence why the ideology/philosophy exists. They literally have a hateful stance towards procreation - that's the point. And that last statement doesn't make sense really, what are you trying to say? I can't see where I said that having a hateful stance is itself irrational. I said that having a stance that goes against common sense and logical explanation is irrational. If anti-natalist philosophy had any merit to it, then life wouldn't have prospered as it did because the force of natural selection would have aimed to minimise suffering. If the way to do that is to mitigate life entirely, then life would have ended.

So... Strawman, emotional appeal, Ad populum... The list of fallacies you've made just grows. How can we debate anything without a minimum of intellectual honesty?! I won't fall into to this trap "debate".

It seems as though you're actually just misinterpreting what I'm saying, finding 'fallacies', and then rejecting them with arguments that are in no ways correct, even when removing any aspect of opinion from the matter, and now you're going "How can we debate anything without a minimum of intellectual honesty?!".
Really?
I think you'll also find you are going to have to address the 'trap "debate"' because you yourself do the exact same fucking thing other "anti-natalists" do. Think everyone thinks the same as them, or in other words, suffers and has the same life experiences as them. It's literally as simple as that. You can't just reject issues with everyone's arguments, including your own, and then start pointing out my "issues" (which, as mentioned, don't exist in the first place.)

I will leave an open question, however, to counter another somewhat inadequate suggestion you did. You said anti-natalists view the "world" (life) as 'cruel'. Yes... Maybe antinalists would use this term, expressing themselves, colloquially, in layman terminology, assuming that life is, overall, "more pains than pleasures".

Let's re-grab that definition from Wikipedia real quick.

Antinatalism or anti-natalism is a family of philosophical views that are critical of reproduction — they consider coming into existence as bad or deem procreation as immoral. Antinatalists thus argue that humans should abstain from having children.

I just also want to grab an extra part, for my sake if I need it:

• Life entails inevitable suffering.
• Death is inevitable.
• Humans (and all forms of life) are born without their consent—no one chooses whether or not they come into existence.
• Although some people may turn out to be happy, this is not guaranteed, so to procreate is to gamble with another person's suffering.
• There is an axiological asymmetry between good and bad things in life, such that coming into existence is always a harm.

Those are the arguments that anti-natalism tends to revolve around.
Looking at what you pulled from my message, it seems like you misinterpreted what I was saying. I didn't say the "world" was cruel. I said that introduction into the world was "cruel". The presence and exposure to potential cruelty is cruel, not the world necessarily. At least, that's what anti-natalists believe, supposedly, as seen in the above arguments of what anti-natalism revolves around. We're on the same page, right?

And that would be inaccurate but, worse: 'cruel' is a moral term, subjected to, well, subjective evaluation and judgment. Neutral terminology is best suited for a more "scientific", objective language. Therefore, instead of 'cruel', I would rather say 'indifferent'.

OK, so it's inaccurate. You never elaborated so I can't really say anything because I don't have a clue about which aspect you find inaccurate, but I think that might actually be the worst sin of this entire message.

You're trying to enforce objective views on a fucking philosophy. I think I would give the philosophy teachers at my college an aneurysm if I did this. The whole point of philosophy, or more specifically anti-natalism, is that it views reproduction as immoral. Immediately, it already starts off as being a subjective view. There is no objective view to be had on it! It can't be applied, because logic doesn't apply here. There's no point using "neutral terminology" for a more ""scientific", objective language" because objective views can't be had on anti-natalism, because it revolves around a subjective topic. That's why it falls apart under the lens of an objective counterargument. The subjective views only make sense in isolation from objective ones, but once you start integrating logical ideas like "Not everyone else suffers like this" and "Suffering isn't necessarily a guarantee in the human life", then it just sort of begins to fall apart.

Not to mention, you replaced a "moral" term (which, by the way, is what almost everyone else uses, because, as I mentioned, everyone else, and me, seems to agree that this is purely a subjective philosophy that cannot have objective views placed on it without falling apart) with another "moral" term. "Indifferent" is not a neutral terminology, nor is it even an accurate representation of anti-natalist philosophy...anti-natalism revolves around the hatred towards procreation and its consequences for life, not an indifferent view of it. I don't even know what you'd call that, but it's definitely not anti-natalism in any sense of the word.

That being said, it would still make no big difference, for the discussion's sake, if antinatalists say the "world" is 'cruel' or 'indifferent'... Because, in the end, you are still affirming that the "world" is, overall, a 'good' thing — which, by the way, is also a problematic moral term just as 'cruel' is.

Turns out using these moral terms is only an issue if your argument isn't about morality in the first place. Anti-natalism's whole schtick is morality. So there isn't an issue here. You're putting an objective lens on a subjective philosophy, which alone isn't a bad thing, except you're trying to use it to justify it, when in reality, objective views of philosophies like anti-natalism make it completely fall apart simply through logic. That's kind of why it's a philosophy. Because it's subjective. It's literally its' whole thing. I can't state this enough.

Why can you say that the "world" is 'good' but anti-natalists can't say it is actually 'cruel'…? What is your criterion? If you really think hard about my question, you are going to realize you're not being fair and balanced as you would like to think.

I never said that the world is good so I'll assume this is just an open argument not in reference to my post. I was sleep deprived when I wrote it and I am now so maybe I skimmed over it. Highlight it to me and I'll reason why I came up with that.

On the off chance you are referring to my argument though...the answer is that you are able to argue that life is cruel, but the majority of people do not see it that way. Here's another open question: Is life really cruel if no one sees it that way? If everyone had what we could consider to be quite a miserable life by our standards, but they enjoyed it, is it miserable, or is it a positive life? The answer to that open question would be that it's in the eye of the beholder.

Even then, I still don't see where I said that anti-natalists can't say life is cruel and that life is definitively good, but please correct me, then I'll answer your question.

No and yes.

No, existence is not an immoral act. It's not even an 'act' to begin with.

Earlier, you were talking about a debate with "intellectual honesty". If we're going to argue over the semantics of what I wrote, then I could also highlight the numerous spelling mistakes you wrote. Thing is, I'm not going to, because I assumed you and I were going into this with "intellectual honesty", even if you believed that I didn't have any. This really doesn't reflect well on your arguments if you're going to fall for the same things you accuse me of doing and then use that as an argument in and of itself.

And, yes, antinatalists think procreation/birthing sentient beings is an immoral act. That's the honest definition of anti-natalism you should have stated instead of the one you used before.

Anti-natalism is defined as being the hatred and disgust at the action of reproduction due to the introduction of a life into the world, which anti-natalists see as 'cruel'.

View attachment 123267
It literally means the exact same thing. I don't know what you think my idea of anti-natalism is, but chances are it's not what you think and that it's actually closer to the general definition.

Also...

I will be audacious and state that all — and I really mean ALL — the people in this forum, with their diverse life backgrounds, if they were given the option between (1) Killing themselves or (2) Never being born, they would choose (2) because it's always "better" never to have been in the first place. For suicidal people, this is what anti-nalism truly means. (And that should include you, despite your reluctance against it.)

Am I tripping or did you not contradict yourself by saying that anti-natalism is wanting to not have been born after suffering rather than killing yourself and then saying that having been born is immoral? This isn't the same thing. Please keep the definitions consistent, chief.

Anti-natalism says: Procreation is an immoral act. (When done by moral agents like humans, since morality doesn't apply to non-human agents)

That last part is an entirely different argument but I would say that morals do apply to non-human, or more specifically, non-sapient agents. If morality is defined as being the difference between intentions considered 'proper' and 'improper' based on a code of conduct/societal norms, then non-sapients are absolutely capable of this. An example of this would be animals assisting others even if it's not beneficial to an individual. This is taught to them by societal norms. Simple societal norms, but societal norms nonetheless. Hell, Wikipedia even seems to agree with me:

Antinatalist views are not necessarily limited only to humans, but may encompass all sentient creatures, claiming that coming into existence is a harm for sentient beings in general.

 

[thewalkingdread]

As I said from the get go, I'm not going to fall into this trap "debate" and feed the troll.

I will, however, make some few, last remarks to completely expose your severe lack of respect for a civil, mature, honest and educated discussion.

Whoever reads your remarks — if they got the patience to read all the bullshit you wrote in this thread! — will come to the conclusion that you are nothing but a pea-sized Homer Simpson brained spoiled bully, who's only interest is to offend others... adding nothing to the discussion except your childish, narcisistic, victimist low leveled sophistry.

This is not me forcing "everyone's views to be just like mine", as you farcically claim, but a thing called objective reality. Everyone with a functional set of eyes can objectively watch your misbehavior.

That being said... Let's see what pearls came out of your reckless, big mouth:

That response was a cluster fuck. Let's dissect it.

Right... My educated, polite response to you was a "cluster FUCK"... I now clearly see you were bothered by it's (modest) size somehow and you feel like you're entitled to curse at me just for that... Right on! You have an obviously a very well balanced, sound mind.

How "ironic" of you that you chose to write an even bigger, convoluted, — much, much worse — reply to it, right?!

Earlier, you were talking about a debate with "intellectual honesty". If we're going to argue over the semantics of what I wrote, then I could also highlight the numerous spelling mistakes you wrote. Thing is, I'm not going to,

You are not going to highlight my spelling mistakes?! Well... I think you just did it when you said you COULD highlight them, but you wouldn't.

I get the feeling that you're trying to say something without actually saying it... Like... in a passive-agressive mode.

It must be a real pain for you... having to "debate" with such an illiterate dumbass like me. Who do I think I am to question your intellectual honesty, huh?! I can't even even do a basic spelling bee... I definitely owe you an apology: sorry, Bud! (Not really, tho. Sorry...)

(FYI BTW: English is not my native language, portuguese is. Also, I'm not using any english spelling/grammar aid on my phone and often the phone fixes words to it's portuguese alternate. Maybe now you can see things from another POV other than your own self-entitled, elitist, one? I hope so!)

Don't compare being childfree with anti-natalism. I'm sure there are childfree anti-natalists, but it's like comparing apples and oranges and saying they're the same thing cause they're both fruits. Look at them under a lens and you'll find they result in similar outcomes for entirely different reasons. It doesn't come with the moral judgement because there isn't moral judgement to be had, because it's an entirely different fucking process.

"Don't compare being childfree with anti-natalism".

Well, if you do a honest reading of what I argued for in my reply to you, you'll see that I never did. At least not in the convoluted way you mean.

I don't think 'compare' is the proper word/verb for this paragraph you wrote... Because the whole point you want to make with it is to say that anti-natalism and childfree are not the same thing. (And — surprise, surprise! — I agree: they're not the same thing. And NOWHERE I said otherwise.)

If your purpose is to say something is different than something else, the proper word you're looking for is not 'compare' but 'equal'. Since 'equal' is the exact opposite of 'different'.

So let me help you rewrite your paragraph in order for it to be more meaningful, clear and precise:

Don't compare equate being childfree with anti-natalism. I'm sure there are childfree anti-natalists, but it's like comparing equating apples and oranges and saying they're the same thing cause they're both fruits. Look at them under a lens and you'll find they result in similar outcomes for entirely different reasons. It doesn't come with the moral judgement because there isn't moral judgement to be had, because it's an entirely different fucking process.

See?! See how it's way better? Precise and clear communication!

I think most people — you included — that use this knee-jerk, clichê, stupid phrase "you can't compare oranges and apples" don't really understand all the implications of what the word 'compare' actually means.

Why would anyone want to compare things when they are exactly the same?! There is no real interesting or useful information to be gained by comparing something to an exact copy of itself. It doesn't even make sense for most practical purposes.

The most interesting and useful comparisons we can make are precisely the ones between two distinct objects.

Usually, people who use this "apples and oranges" fruit salad fallacy just want to establish a censorship where one can't even make any distinctions whatsoever... because they somehow dislike the results of the comparisons in the first place.

You are using it in your debauchery just to ridicularize me, by saying I can't even tell an apple from an orange. Sure... You are a real case of someone being "too smart" for his own good,

I'm sure this will be a reasonable and not completely insane debate.

That's exactly why I said, right off the bat, that I won't fall for your trap "debate". You are strawmaning me, putting words in my mouth and ascribing ideologies that I never said, suggested, or condoned.

Free will but only when I want to die. Child wants to live? Tough shit lmao

This is the icing on the cake of your pettiness and, at the same time, your ludicrous gigantic ignorance.

You are surreptiticiously saying anti-natalists are pro-infanticide, equating it to the right-to-die cause and, worse, saying that anti-natalists pro-right-to-die are just hypocrites.

You've got some balls between your legs, Mr. I'll give you that. Use them to go fuck yourself. Your "argument" is pure scum and villany.

 

[EternalShore]

It's kinda nice to see how a sizable minority still opposes anti-natalism here! :) hehe~

 

[Rouge4000]

Yes and no. There are to many people in earth and more people isn't exactly a the best thing for this planet right? But on the other hand creating life is somewhat precious and was always something I wanted to do so Ig it really depends on who you ask (I think most people who are pro life would disagree)

 

[katattack]

I wanted to be a mother. But my own trauma and mental health issues would equal me being a horrible mother. I feel people who have issues like mine, or are just fucked up shouldn't be allowed to have kids. But then it gets complicated on who can and cannot have children. But I feel like the country you live in should have evaluations for anyone who wants to be a parent.

Add to the fact people shouldn't be having kids until every last adoptable child has a happy home, but we all know that once a baby is born no one gives a fuck about it anymore. Knew some kids in the system they lived through some twisted sick shit, they shouldn't have been born just to suffer like that.

I couldn't agree more with you on this.

In general, I feel like we really should stop reproducing. We are overcrowded as we are on this planet and things will only get worse. Also, there is so many kids without a (loving) home. Let's give those kids a home first before we make more new kids. Personally I always wanted to be a mother. However, I could never burden a kid with my genes / trauma / depression et cetera. And this is before even considering what world I would bring a kid into. So no, I should never have kids. And neither should other people. But it's more complicated then that usually.

 

[Photographer Fizzle]

You say that people should only be allowed to do things that don't hurt others, and you accept that bringing children into the world is harmful. Yet you say that people should be free to have children? Don't you see the contradiction?

agreed. Also, that poat failed to acknowledge the potential harm to the children.

 

[thewalkingdread]

Yes and no. There are to many people in earth and more people isn't exactly a the best thing for this planet right? But on the other hand creating life is somewhat precious

The thing is... anti-natalism is not a hyperpopulation solution. It's not about eugenics or any other social-economic issue. It's not about carbon emissions, It's not about the planet.

It's about the sentient life that will be created.

Anti-natalism is nothing more than just a simple ethical proposition: creating a new sentient life is unethical because bringing It to existence is always a serious harm being done to this very own "precious" thing we like to say we care about so much. People don't realize that by "having a kid", they are actually seriously harming It.

You mentioned that you'd like to have a kid... Well...I too would like to have one. But there's a catch 22 in this...

I don't want my kid to suffer and die. I think it's reasonable to say that If any of those things happen, It would be very bad, for everyone... For me, for my kid.

If I have a kid, he will, with a 100% chance, die and suffer. And I really don't want any of that. That's why I won't have kids, because I don't want them to suffer or die.

This is what anti-natalism is all about: preventing unnecessary suffering.

It doesn't matter that they never get to go to see Mickey Mouse on Disneyland or some other futile "happy" bullshit... What really matters is that they never suffer.

 

[hermestrimegistus]

I think (especially as someone who went through a pretty unique form of religious brainwash and still believes in it) its probably objectively wrong to bring more life into the world when 1) I personally believe the material world sucks so I'd be the ultimate fucking hypocrite and 2) I have done nothing to help make the world a better place for someone to be born into. But selfishly all I want is to start a family, so. I have trouble coping with this contradiction

 

[Smelly_ballz]

Although I do see humans (in general) as cruel, selfish creatures that should be stopped, I think anti-natalism could easily become eugenics. I decided to vote no bc of this, but realistically I don't care about the topic.

 

[thewalkingdread]

I think (especially as someone who went through a pretty unique form of religious brainwash and still believes in it) its probably objectively wrong to bring more life into the world when 1) I personally believe the material world sucks so I'd be the ultimate fucking hypocrite and 2) I have done nothing to help make the world a better place for someone to be born into. But selfishly all I want is to start a family, so. I have trouble coping with this contradiction

The fact that you are considering the bad consequences of bringing a child to this world is already a good thing. It means that you really care about making a reflected, rational decision.

Most people just don't really think too much about it. Most people spend more time thinking about the pros and cons of buying a car X or Y than about what will be the best decision FOR THE CHILD.

Assuming for a moment that we aren't discussing this in a pro-choice suicidal ideation forum: As an anti-natalist, you can still have sex, you can still marry and have a family if you want. People can live perfectly "good" lives without having kids. I would go on to say that, in general, childless couples live "happier" lives, have less divorces, etc...

You won't biologicaly procreate in order to have children, because If you do so, then — tecnically — you'll no longer be an antinatalist... but if you really want to raise a child, you can always adopt one.

Anti-natalism is not a bogeyman as pro-life idiots like to think...

 

[アホペンギン]

Adopting the antinatalist mindset is a normal outcome of being suicidal since you believe that no further people should suffer to the extent that you have.. Of course, despite themselves suffering they do believe that there is still a good chance to succeed in life and fulfill your desires but I think peoples' mindsets, regarding antinatalism as well as their opinions on said topic vary a lot.

It definitely depends on their own personal experinces involving everything that they've done. Then, after that, their opinions on certain concepts are then subject to reevaluation and their mindsets and views on things will then change accordingly.

I am personally an antinatalist and I have my own reasons for believing in such a way, like everyone else has for either agreeing with me, disagreeing with me, or being neutral. I respect everyone's opinions regarding subjects like these and my levels of respect for them remain the same, regardless of what they believe.

 

[hermestrimegistus]

The fact that you are considering the bad consequences of bringing a child to this world is already a good thing. It means that you really care about making a reflected, rational decision.

Most people just don't really think too much about it. Most people spend more time thinking about the pros and cons of buying a car X or Y than about what will be the best decision FOR THE CHILD.

Assuming for a moment that we aren't discussing this in a pro-choice suicidal ideation forum: As an anti-natalist, you can still have sex, you can still marry and have a family if you want. People can live perfectly "good" lives without having kids. I would go on to say that, in general, childless couples live "happier" lives, have less divorces, etc...

You won't biologicaly procreate in order to have children, because If you do so, then — tecnically — you'll no longer be an antinatalist... but if you really want to raise a child, you can always adopt one.

Anti-natalism is not a bogeyman as pro-life idiots like to think...

Yeah but theres a totally biological urge to breed and carry my own children. And at the risk of being mysognistic or whatever i feel like its my main purpose as a women. I'm not some girl boss careerist. (That isnt saying I wouldnt work) but I want a few kids of my own and to treat them way better than i ever was growing up. But it feels selfish. Even if my intent is selfless

 

[LaVieEnRose]

Yeah but theres a totally biological urge to breed and carry my own children. And at the risk of being mysognistic or whatever i feel like its my main purpose as a women. I'm not some girl boss careerist. (That isnt saying I wouldnt work) but I want a few kids of my own and to treat them way better than i ever was growing up. But it feels selfish. Even if my intent is selfless

If you want children and feel you have the wherewithal to be a good mother then go ahead and have children. Abstaining from having children isn't going to stop the majority from popping out babies.

 

[thewalkingdread]

theres a totally biological urge to breed and carry my own children

Is there?! Are you sure it's a pure biological urge to breed?

I don't think women are essentially mysoginistic just for the simple fact that they would like to be a mother one day. If that's what they really want...

Our society, however, is still pretty mysoginistic — in spite of all the progress achieved by liberal democracies regarding women's legal rights.

Culturally, as a whole, we (i.e. society) still think the most important role of a woman is to be a walking incubator and a 24/7 nanny after the baby pops out... (People are still being conditioned by this antiquate "common Sense")

So I repeat the question: is your urge really biologicaly or cultural?! That's a tough one to think about...

Abstaining from having children isn't going to stop the majority from popping out babies.

Ditto. It won't make any bit of a difference for the rest of the world.

 

[hermestrimegistus]

If you want children and feel you have the wherewithal to be a good mother then go ahead and have children. Abstaining from having children isn't going to stop the majority from popping out babies.

yeah well. Not like anyone quality would want to breed with me. And what I want and what I should be doing totally contradict. Just because I want something doesnt mean I should actually get/do it

 

[Mistiie]

@thewalkingdread

Before reading, it's important to mention that I'm not even going to bother refuting any "arguments" you made that are relevant to the actual main discussion at hand. You've proven yourself to not be willing to do that and instead intend on making snide, false remarks towards other people, going against your own points constantly and almost within the same sentence at that, and in general trying to completely derail any relevant discussions that are to be had. There isn't a point arguing with someone who focuses on semantics, types of language used, etc. because it's clear that they don't actually give a flying fuck about any topic at hand, they just want to be rude and be right. You're only the former, (un)fortunately.

I suppose I'm 'stooping to your level' by not mentioning any of your relevant arguments, but by the looks of it, they either don't exist or have no substance, so am I really...?

I'm also not going to put much effort into it, because quite frankly, I shouldn't have to. Basically everything you've said can be dismantled solely through irrelevancy or going against what you just said. Here we go:

---

severe lack of respect

you are nothing but a pea-sized Homer Simpson brained spoiled bully, who's only interest is to offend others... adding nothing to the discussion except your childish, narcisistic, victimist low leveled sophistry.

self-awareness at an all-time low

---

This is not me forcing "everyone's views to be just like mine", as you farcically claim, but a thing called objective reality. Everyone with a functional set of eyes can objectively watch your misbehavior.

misbehaviour as in the severe lack of respect you're showing??????? i refuse to believe this isn't satire straight from the get-go

---

you feel like you're entitled to curse at me

have you ever been on the internet before? also "Whoever reads your remarks — if they got the patience to read all the bullshit you wrote in this thread!"
sound familiar?

---

I now clearly see you were bothered by it's (modest) size somehow

?????? something something putting words into my own mouth here. i hope that statement isn't relevant anywhere in the future? :^/

---

How "ironic" of you that you chose to write an even bigger, convoluted, — much, much worse — reply to it, right?!

> writes response that defies itself in the first few lines
> calls my response worse
> refuses to elaborate on why
> leaves

you cannot make this up

---

Well... I think you just did it when you said you COULD highlight them, but you wouldn't

highlight them as an argument. there's a clear difference there. come on, you know this, no?

---

It must be a real pain for you... having to "debate" with such an illiterate dumbass like me. Who do I think I am to question your intellectual honesty, huh?! I can't even even do a basic spelling bee... I definitely owe you an apology: sorry, Bud! (Not really, tho. Sorry...)

strawman by exaggeration yet you called me out on using a strawman (which, as mentioned, wasn't a strawman anyways), ok buddy

---

Maybe now you can see things from another POV other than your own self-entitled, elitist, one? I hope so!

"severe lack of respect"

---

"Don't compare being childfree with anti-natalism".

Well, if you do a honest reading of what I argued for in my reply to you, you'll see that I never did. At least not in the convoluted way you mean.

I don't think 'compare' is the proper word/verb for this paragraph you wrote... Because the whole point you want to make with it is to say that anti-natalism and childfree are not the same thing. (And — surprise, surprise! — I agree: they're not the same thing. And NOWHERE I said otherwise.)

If your purpose is to say something is different than something else, the proper word you're looking for is not 'compare' but 'equal'. Since 'equal' is the exact opposite of 'different'.

So let me help you rewrite your paragraph in order for it to be more meaningful, clear and precise:

See?! See how it's way better? Precise and clear communication!

I think most people — you included — that use this knee-jerk, clichê, stupid phrase "you can't compare oranges and apples" don't really understand all the implications of what the word 'compare' actually means.

Why would anyone want to compare things when they are exactly the same?! There is no real interesting or useful information to be gained by comparing something to an exact copy of itself. It doesn't even make sense for most practical purposes.

The most interesting and useful comparisons we can make are precisely the ones between two distinct objects.

Usually, people who use this "apples and oranges" fruit salad fallacy just want to establish a censorship where one can't even make any distinctions whatsoever... because they somehow dislike the results of the comparisons in the first place.

You are using it in your debauchery just to ridicularize me, by saying I can't even tell an apple from an orange. Sure... You are a real case of someone being "too smart" for his own good,

you dedicated two paragraphs worth of text to changing words in my statement because you didn't like my communication.
what point are you even trying to make here?

---

You are a real case of someone being "too smart" for his own good,

"severe lack of respect"

---

That's exactly why I said, right off the bat, that I won't fall for your trap "debate". You are strawmaning me, putting words in my mouth and ascribing ideologies that I never said, suggested, or condoned.

you'll find there's a difference between "ascribing ideologies" and "thinking someone is going to make a batshit crazy argument given the types of language they're using, and adjusting their arguments in response"

---

You are strawmaning me, putting words in my mouth and ascribing ideologies that I never said, suggested, or condoned.

now calling me out on strawman despite using it yourself, even if i'm not doing this as far as i can tell?

---

your ludicrous gigantic ignorance.

"severe lack of respect" quote is GOATED

---

anti-natalists are pro-infanticide

mf what i was referring to the child not having a chance of life, not being fucking murdered. also "You are strawmaning me, putting words in my mouth and ascribing ideologies that I never said, suggested or condoned." how do you manage to do the exact same thing you're shitting on someone else for

---

equating it to the right-to-die cause and, worse, saying that anti-natalists pro-right-to-die are just hypocrites.

"You are strawmaning me, putting words in my mouth and ascribing ideologies that I never said, suggested or condoned."

---

You've got some balls between your legs, Mr. I'll give you that. Use them to go fuck yourself. Your "argument" is pure scum and villany.

"severe lack of respect"

---

Seriously, how do you manage to make such a messy response that falls over itself? You're literally doing the exact same things you're accusing me of, multiple times, and then completely misreading anything I'm saying, all whilst neglecting points I'm making because, as it appears to me, you can't debate them away because you're aware you're doing it. The whole "trap debate" thing is a huge issue that "anti-natalists" spew and you ignore it, citing my "strawmaning" despite the fact that what I'm doing isn't strawmanning in any sense of the word, and not only that, you're doing it yourself. I mean this with all due respect; you need to read out your arguments and points that you make in the future, because your argument literally trips over itself in the third paragraph. Not the big ones. Literally just the third line contradicts what you said in the second.

I would go down the path of being rude towards your character just to spite you like you did to me, but I'm not going to bother. I don't have the time to bother. All of that text was just genuinely pathetic attempts made at a "Gotcha! Your argument is wrong!" by finding very basic, irrelevant mistakes in my text. What the fuck is the point of even arguing with you at this point? It's just not worth arguing with someone who clearly doesn't have any counterarguments left.

Don't bother responding if you're not going to actually give good counterarguments. It'll just look embarrassing. I wouldn't even mind if you completely flipped back from this response and made any relevant statements to the actual discussion rather than just attacking someone's character because you don't seem to be able to make any statements that can deflect any points made against you.

What's really funny is this is almost exactly what I meant with the whole "Anti-natalists have half-baked arguments" thing. You make a valid point, they "counter", you give counterarguments, and then the entire conversation derails as they either stop making relevant points or end up completely misconstruing anything you say and twisting it into an abomination incomparable to your previous message you were trying to deliver. If there is one thing I appreciate about this, it's that you set yourself up to be a perfect example of this happening in a thread with a serious anti-natalist. And you only reinforced my own views given that no one seems to be able to actually make a dent in it without resorting to attacking me as a person.

Also, the fact that anyone liked that message is beyond disturbing. How do you read that text, with little to no arguments made to actually counter whatever I say, and with so many mistakes scattered throughout, and then think, "Yeah, this is top tier material. Time to like!"

 

[haibane]

I do think that a lot of people are enjoying life in a way or another and im genuinely happy for them. And for that reason i wouldn't call me an anti natalist, cause i think that those people have the right to exist. That said, i do think too that for some people like me life is an awful experience to live. Obviously, as i do think that life is an unfair experience, we should have the right to end it if we want to and for whatever reason.

Edit : my phrasing is terrible, its late i hope u still understand what im trying to say

 

[Undertow Mermaid]

This is a hop, skip and a jump away from eugenics. An OK-at-best idea in theory, but good luck enforcing this in any way. On one hand, you'll have people not caring and doing the deed in private. On the other, your government now restricts people based on more than mental health. That's a stone's throw from what our favourite toothbrush-moustache-donning man in the 1900s believed in for specific peoples. And no, not Charlie Chaplin.

Yeah I know, hence why my comment continued on further past what you quoted. But you can cherry pick it apart all you like, I got bigger problems then someone claiming I want eugenics as a solution. I just want kids adopted.

 

[thewalkingdread]

@Mistiie This will be the last time I reply to you.

You know what's the biggest difference between you and me?! (Sorry... I will offend your tastebuds but I'll have to compare "apples and oranges" from now on...)

I own all the things I do or say; and here is the deal: I don't like lying, I don't like liers and I specially don't like this blame shifting "game" you — obviously and clearly! — like to play.

Do you know what's the worst, most despicable, mental ailment or character disorder someone can have?! The manipulative, gaslighting, playing-the-victim game you play.

And, as I said, you are a misbehaved, narcisistic, self-entitled, victimist — and all your "arguments" are nothing but low leveled, gaslighting, sophistry.

I said It once before; and now I've said It twice. And I stand by every word I said.

I'm not being disrespectful to you. I'm just not being polite to you anymore. I'm just refusing myself from omtiting what I really think of all the manipulative, intellectually dishonest bullshit you are trying to pull.

There is a big difference between 'not being polite' and 'being disrespectful'... But you wouldn't know that, would you?! You don't even know what 'compare' even means because, in your opinion, no one can "compare apples and oranges"...

And you only reinforced my own views given that no one seems to be able to actually make a dent in it without resorting to attacking me as a person.

"And you only reinforced my own views"

Yeah... That's called 'confirmation bias' and that's a common self-deception method victimists like you employ in order to keep denying reality, any responsability whatsoever, and keep their big inflated egos, well... Inflated.

you dedicated two paragraphs worth of text to changing words in my statement because you didn't like my communication.
what point are you even trying to make here?

I was trying to correct you, in spite of all the nasty tantrum you like to throw. But your severe arrogance and pettiness are preventing you from genuinely learning anything.

mf what i was referring to the child not having a chance of life, not being fucking murdered.

"i was referring to the child not having a chance of life, not being fucking murdered."

This is you, again, being the little weasel you are. Have you noticed that you like to write very specious, ambiguous, sentences!? Well... If you didn't noticed yet, I have... For a long while now.

You've suggested that anti-natalism is pro-infanticide. I refuted your nonsense... And now you're trying to persuade everyone that you didn't say anything about infanticide, to Begin with. (And to be fair, you didn't actually said it; but you definitely SUGGESTED it.)

The thing is... You are still reiteraring the same bullshit suggestion again and again. Anti-natalism is not against a child having a chance at life. You are — perhaps inadvertently — strawmaning the anti-natalism ethical proposition once again. The way you're thinking about anti-natalism still just sounds like anti-natalists are pro-infanticide. And they're not.

You clearly either (1) don't understand what the anti-nalism thesis is or (2) you're disingenuously misconstruing it.

The correct answer is the latter, #2.

mf what

"MF"...? I'm going to be humble and ask: Is that an acronym for "motherfucker"?!

I think it is. And I also think this is in fact not just a lack of politeness, but a — blatant! — disrespectful case of you cursing at someone.

But worse. It's again — surprise, surprise! — a gross intellectual dishonesty you hold against anti-natalists like me.

I'm not a "motherfucker"... nor could I — or will I — ever be one. You see... The whole point of me, as a heterossexual male, being an anti-natalist is that I'm personally against women being mothers in the first place. Therefore, I don't really enjoy fucking mothers.

Capisce?!

 

[thewalkingdread]

Why I am not a Natalist:

 

[Mistiie]

Do you know what's the worst, most despicable, mental ailment or character disorder someone can have?! The manipulative, gaslighting, playing-the-victim game you play.

you wanna explain this or are you just gonna call people things at random and not follow up with reasoning (again) (again)

And, as I said, you are a misbehaved, narcisistic, self-entitled, victimist — and all your "arguments" are nothing but low leveled, gaslighting, sophistry.

gaslighting requires manipulation, and if you think i'm being manipulative, then i don't know what else to say other than you're not reading my messages in the way they're intended nor in the way anyone else sees them. narcisstic also implies that my beliefs are seen as higher than other's ones by me. they're not, and i don't even know where you got that idea, because you've just randomly called me that for no reason or without any evidence. you're just randomly assigning negative attributes to me in a vain attempt to try and get some ground on a baseless argument that has been completely dismantled. the only way i can describe what you're even doing is childish. i literally see prepubescent teens do this on the daily. it's unironically one of the most embarrassing things i've seen

not to mention, you're calling my "arguments" "sophistry" but you've yet to explain to me how a single one of them can be rendered invalid and instead opted for the route of insults and a deep dive into idioms and language that you yourself are using incorrectly anyways. this discussion isn't and has never been about arguments related to anti-natalism, it's all been about getting the upper hand on someone you disagree with, hasn't it? otherwise, you would've been more keenly interested in talking about anti-natalism (which I still am, and am still open to doing) rather than just brutishly throwing out whatever words you can to try and keep logic and sense at bay

There is a big difference between 'not being polite' and 'being disrespectful'...

Oxford Languages definition of "disrespectful": "showing a lack of respect or courtesy; impolite."

You don't even know what 'compare' even means because, in your opinion, no one can "compare apples and oranges"...

you don't know what polite means yet you think you can lecture people on definitions of words??
this is completely ignoring the fact that schooling people on words is devoid of any relation to the actual discussion at hand, as mentioned in my previous response. you've detached yourself from any arguments entirely in favour of berating people who disagree with you and provide valid points because you can't give any. you'd also find that i never said you can't compare apples and oranges, you'd find i instead said that comparing them only works at a base level and that when you actually look at them in any detail, you'd find they're completely different. metaphors shouldn't be hard man

Yeah... That's called 'confirmation bias' and that's a common self-deception method victimists like you employ in order to keep denying reality, any responsability whatsoever, and keep their big inflated egos, well... Inflated.

Oxford Languages definition of "confirmation bias": "the tendency to interpret new evidence as confirmation of one's existing beliefs or theories."
this evidence isn't new, it's evidence that's already been provided to me time and time again and evidence that i already knew existed before you had written your lengthy diatribe towards me.
"confirmation bias" would also mean i'm actively seeking out arguments and views that favour mine. i'm not; all of these arguments i've referred to have basically made up this thread and right now, you're coming straight towards me with possibly the clearest example of my view. this is almost the exact opposite of confirmation bias, i think
also you seem to be giving me various properties again which come out of complete nothingness. you've not said how or why i have a "big infalted ego" nor how i'm "misbehaved", "narcisstic", "self-entitled", or a "victimist". it really does just seem as though you're spewing random words to do what i said earlier (that is, as a vain attempt to try and gain some ground here)

I was trying to correct you, in spite of all the nasty tantrum you like to throw. But your severe arrogance and pettiness are preventing you from genuinely learning anything.

except there's literally no reason to correct me other than to completely dismiss my argument on the grounds of me not knowing things about language, even if i'm not wrong in the first place? language is and was such a non-issue here because no one was using it incorrectly, or if they were, the point they were trying to make was made. then you turned up and just randomly decided to start berating people over their use of language, offering little, if anything, to the discussion at hand? please just read the room dude
not to mention, another example of just saying rude things about me for no reason lol. "severe lack of respect" my ass, you clearly don't care about respect until someone says something remotely offensive to you. i think this would technically fall under the definition of "narcissist" as well, albeit loosely, which makes this even more ironic given you called me that earlier. a lot of this is starting to seem like projection now

This is you, again, being the little weasel you are. Have you noticed that you like to write very specious, ambiguous, sentences!? Well... If you didn't noticed yet, I have... For a long while now.

i gotta stop highlighting any uses of lack of respect, it's like trying to highlight how many times you use the letter a at this point
not to mention my sentences aren't ambiguous in any way? you just have to not take them at face value. it's not that difficult at all, and i can't imagine anyone else has issues with this or else i'd have been called out by now on it

You've suggested that anti-natalism is pro-infanticide. I refuted your nonsense... And now you're trying to persuade everyone that you didn't say anything about infanticide, to Begin with. (And to be fair, you didn't actually said it; but you definitely SUGGESTED it.)

except i didn't suggest it? again, you need to not take things at face value/learn to read the subtext a bit. in fact i'd argue what i said is at face value. i literally said that anti-natalism wouldn't allow children the chance to live life, and said nowhere that they were being murdered - to say such a thing would require mental gymnastics an olympian would only dream of. i can't really say much else for this other than you're completely missing the points of my messages and just making things up about them at this point lmao

The thing is... You are still reiteraring the same bullshit suggestion again and again. Anti-natalism is not against a child having a chance at life. You are — perhaps inadvertently — strawmaning the anti-natalism ethical proposition once again. The way you're thinking about anti-natalism still just sounds like anti-natalists are pro-infanticide. And they're not.

if anti-natalism's main agenda is to reduce procreation to prevent potential suffering, then you're preventing the creation of a child, and therefore the possibility of that child experiencing life. there isn't any other way to look at that. it's literally a direct consequence of anti-natalist views, and you can't say that reducing procreation to avoid suffering isn't what anti-natalists believe in, because it's literally the entire point of anti-natalism. this isn't strawmanning, this is logical deduction based on what anti-natalists desire, and then looking at what results from those views. you really need to figure out the definitions of words yourself because a lot of the time they're just completely incorrect and it just seems like you're using buzz words to try and reduce my point or deflect arguments without providing any real substance that would ultimately quash it

You clearly either (1) don't understand what the anti-nalism thesis is or (2) you're disingenuously misconstruing it.

misconstruing is to interpret incorrectly, and i'm not interpreting it incorrectly. again, wanting to prevent procreation out of a belief that suffering is a guarantee in life for anyone is quite literally the definition of anti-natalism. therefore my interpretation of the idea that anti-natalism would result in children not having opportunities to live is entirely correct. i don't even know how i can develop this point further, it's as simple as i can possibly make it.

"MF"...? I'm going to be humble and ask: Is that an acronym for "motherfucker"?!

I think it is. And I also think this is in fact not just a lack of politeness, but a — blatant! — disrespectful case of you cursing at someone.

i assumed all attempts at being "polite" were out the window the moment you ran out of arguments to use and resorted to insulting people and going on random, unrelated tangents in regards to language

But worse. It's again — surprise, surprise! — a gross intellectual dishonesty you hold against anti-natalists like me.

i don't even think you know what intellectual dishonesty means here because i literally cannot comprehend how you come to this from someone using the word "mf"

I'm not a "motherfucker"... nor could I — or will I — ever be one. You see... The whole point of me, as a heterossexual male, being an anti-natalist is that I'm personally against women being mothers in the first place. Therefore, I don't really enjoy fucking mothers.

nothing else i can say other than this was a really weird thing to say and i don't think anyone would disagree with me on this. kind of gross dude

I know I said I wasn't going to respond to you but I seriously didn't expect your messages to devolve this far. At least in the original response you were at least trying to maintain the appearance that you were still providing valid points, even if they were just masking random comments over language and being rude to other people, but now it's just fully mask-off. You've got insulting people without knowing what specific words mean (presumably because you're basically just pulling whatever you can out of your ass to try and see what sticks as a way to deflect criticisms), not knowing what the arguments of anti-natalism even are, and going on random tangents about language to try and push yourself away from the discussion as far as possible, which is probably an attempt at avoiding having to give any more arguments solely because you ran out of them. Had you not, you wouldn't have resorted to this and would have instead tried to actually debate me instead of just using all sorts of "sophisticated" insults, phrases, and specific philosophical/debate-related terminology to try and dismantle my argument(s).

Before I post this reply, I'm going to cover my base in regards to talking about languages because I can almost guarantee there's going to be some upcoming snarky comment about "Oh, I'm going on tangents about language? Like you are?" with a quotation of one of my messages correcting you on the words you're using, and I'm doing that because you're directing all of this at me. You're "analysing" every aspect of my writing to try and untangle whatever mess you think you see, even if there isn't one, and in the process, you're getting almost everything you're saying wrong. This isn't about spelling, either, it's literally just the meanings of what you're saying. You clearly don't understand what "narcissist" or "disrespectful" or any other thing you called me means, because there's either no sign of me being that or it's just literally the opposite definition of what you think it means, or something else entirely. Hell, you don't even understand a really simple idiom like "apples and oranges" - either that, or you misread my message/skimmed over it and made a half-arsed response to it thinking that what you said was correct. I don't want to argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about, let alone even know what they and other people are saying at times, down to the minute details of what words mean. It's just embarassing and it's really not reflecting well on you at all.

Again, just covering my bases in case you reply to me. I'm sincerely hoping you don't because I don't have the time to talk with someone who argues like a stroppy 10 year old who can't give any more reasons for their behaviours, but I know that I'm not always going to get my way. If you do respond, though, I can almost guarantee that I'll find it funny given how far down the rabbit-hole of degeneracy that message went. I assume that the next one in the chain will be images of chicken scrawl on paper and lunatic ramblings on language usage and idioms, no matter how incorrect they are.

On the other hand, it would be nice if you actually made some attempt at responding to any of the anti-natalism-related arguments I made with something OTHER than language "issues" you saw or with complete misunderstandings of idioms or just opting to call me every thing you can think of under the sun.

 

[blacksand]

I am. I envy those who were never conceived because their parents never met.

 

[Bloodhoof]

I'm gonna write my two cents on the topic without reading other replies, mostly because I am too ADHD to concentrate but also because I have a strong philosophy which I would like to express without having read other opinions. Here we go...

I didn't learn about anti-natalism until, I guess the last 6 months ish, I've been struggling with depression since I hit puberty, and always felt like I didn't belong. I couldn't put my finger on the issue until I realised that the reason for my suffering is being born. Society sucks, we have to work our ass off for 7 days of paid vacation a year and national holidays are a joke in most industries. Besides this we can't feel pleasure without knowing what suffering is. In a state on non-existence we are unaware of everything, no pleasure no pain, therefor we are better off. 34 Years and 9 months ago around Valentines day my parents decided they wanted to do the dirty without a fucking condom and there I was. We can an SHOULD give our consent for everything we do or is done to us in life, but we can't and I =certainly didn't consent to being born. My parents wanted a family, which is, in my opinion the most selfish thing one can want. Many people won't agree with me because procreation is in our genes, but with how sopciety is right now and how fucked up life is, why would we force new life into existence. The best thing we can do is stop prcreating and go extict. The planet, nature, flora and fauna will thank us. Rant over, happy to hear your thoughts. I will now start reading other comments.

 

[Golden]

Anti-natalism is defined as being the hatred and disgust at the action of reproduction due to the introduction of a life into the world, which anti-natalists see as 'cruel'. This is downright stupid.

Although I disagree with your view on most people having good lives, that's not the whole argument anyways. It is argued that coming into existence is always bad but you could be an anti-natalist even if you disagree with the claim. There's other arguments too.

The argument of risk is a stronger argument in my opinion. For the argument of risk, all you need to recognize is that coming into existence could be bad. And when you recognize that coming into existence could be bad for your child, you need to ask yourself does the possibility of a good life, justify the risk of it being bad.

I'd argue that it doesn't. We can demonstrate the situation with a very simple example. Imagine a machine that creates new beings. The beings it creates either suffer their whole life immensely or enjoy great pleasure their whole life. If it creates bad and good lives 50/50, is it justifiable to let the machine create new life? What if there was a 10 percent chance for the bad life to occur? Is there any probability of bad life occurring that would justify running the machine? I'd argue that obviously not.

Running the machine is essentially what you are doing when you bring new life into existence. Even if you don't believe that COMING into existence is always bad, BRINGING someone into existence is never justifiable. You don't have the right to impose that risk of it being bad, on someone else. An example of that would be to point out that gambling with someone else's stolen money is never justifiable, even if you plan on paying the possible winnings back and therefore it could lead to a positive outcome. When you bring new life into existence, you are essentially gambling with their welfare. For every "good life" you create, you also create children dying of cancer, children being molested, people being tortured. Suffering. How is it right that some people need to suffer so some ("most") people can be happy?