Discussion [NSFL/Read only if you're REALLY willing to CTB and need something that reduces your fear of death] Just how many of you are antinatalists here?

[Promortalistic4Life]

If you are not familiar with the philosophy (there is a reason why it's so underground. The governments and such want more children to have more work slaves), antinatalism is the belief, that procreation (giving birth) is always wrong and morally unjustifiable. There are many, many reasons for that, one being that the non-existent cannot consent to being born or that when you're giving birth, you're essentialy gambling with another person's life, as these children might end up in places just like sanctionedsuicide. Life is full of suffering, and one has to be a massive retard to bring another life into this hellhole. There's so much shit that might happen to that child, such as bullying, sexual/abuse, genetic conditions, depression & suicidal ideation, cancer, migraine and so on and so on. Efilism is basically antinatalism but it extends to all species, not just humans.

However, one thing that fully convinced me about efilism, is the following hypothetical situation I was thinking of. Suppose you are a content being, with absolutely no desires, in a higher plane of existence (nirvana?), just existing. Since you have unlimited freetime, you could do anything in that world, but why would you? You don't have the desire to feel anything positive, you don't have the desire to experience, perceive, or to overcome boredom, since boredom implies that you have the desire for entertainment, for stimulation. And that's a thing that buddhism teaches. That desires are the root of ALL suffering, and boy oh boy were these guys ahead of their fucking time (compared to all the other western religions and philosophies that were only a projection of the individuals desires so it was basically a construct of bullshit). You want to eat that delicious looking cake? Desire to consume. You want to get into the college of your dreams? Desire. Someone captured you and tortures you now? Desire to end pain.
And on top of that, literally everything positive in life can be reduced down to nothing but dopamine. A fucking. Chemical.

You know who has no desires? The non-existent ones. They are pretty much in nirvana, cos that's what nothingness is. No desire, no suffering. And yet all these fucking breeders don't understand my extremely rational reasoning. Yet they will continue to breed, and keep on making more children who will suffer for no greater goal, just like you and me. What a horror.

People ask all these fucking questions, like "What's the purpose of life?", "Why are we here?", "What's the origin of physical mass?" when in reality, the only question that matters, is

"To be or not be."

That's it. That's the final question. There's no more reason to get an answer to all these other questions, bc they only serve one primitive purpose: To satisfy our curiosity, our meaningless desire for answers.

But I'm actually happy I found this philosophy, bc it makes CTB for me tremendously more easier. I no longer cling onto my dreams, they pretty much... dissolved, just like I will. So if you're like me and pretty confident into getting the fuck outta here, hope this helps, for I am Promortalistic 4 Life.
So what is your opinion of antinatalism or my analogy about non-existence being inherently favorable to existence? Do you think procreation is fucked and completely stupid and unneccessary, as the unborn never had a desire to live to begin with?

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

I find there's a flaw in your theory. You seem to me to equate non-existent beings to existent beings, just in a different location or state, the bliss of Nirvana or nothingness.

If one does not exist, they don't experience bliss. They don't experience anything. Because they don't exist.

I get the impression from your theory that they are yanked out of bliss to be born. But if one is nothing and does not exist, they cannot be yanked. There is nothing to yank.

If they were truly nothing before conception, before the egg and the sperm met and there was a chemical reaction that caused life to begin, then that was the moment they began to exist. With life there is suffering, including the suffering caused by desire. But before that spark, they were nothing, therefore they experienced neither suffering nor bliss.

 

[rt1989526]

There are no words that can capture how badly I want to not exist.

 

[Promortalistic4Life]

I find there's a flaw in your theory. You seem to me to equate non-existent beings to existent beings, just in a different location or state, the bliss of Nirvana or nothingness.

If one does not exist, they don't experience bliss. They don't experience anything. Because they don't exist.

I get the impression from your theory that they are yanked out of bliss to be born. But if one is nothing and does not exist, they cannot be yanked. There is nothing to yank.

If they were truly nothing before conception, before the egg and the sperm met and there was a chemical reaction that caused life to begin, then that was the moment they began to exist. With life there is suffering, including the suffering caused by desire. But before that spark, they were nothing, therefore they experienced neither suffering nor bliss.

Sigh... you don't understand... here we go again...

Wheter you equate nirvana to non-existence, it doesn't matter. What matters is the futility of our lifes. An absolute content being has no desire, the dead have no desire. That absolute content being has also no problem to get killed, since it has not even the desire to remain alive. See what I mean? It's not the same thing, sure, but jezus christ are those two things closely related. The only reason I'm still alive is my mom and the fear of death, which can be reduced to what? A desire to not cause my mom pain and the instinctual desire to avoid death. It really is nothing more than desire brother. Just pls kill me.

Also, only the existent ones can desire to experience bliss. An infinite amount of children and animals have never been born. Should we grieve them? No. They don't even desire positive things (once again, a goddamn chemical. Life is nothing but a stupid joke).

There are no words that can capture how badly I want to not exist.

There are no words than can capture how badly your claim describes me. Same Mr., same...

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I generally agree with the basic idea.
Even if, on balance, the probability of being a 'happy', contented human who is glad it had a shot at life, is greater than being a human who wishes it hadn't been born because of suffering, etc, it still does not morally justify bringing a human into existence. Because the possibility of suffering due to any number of factors is of greater importance than any happiness that existence can bring. I would even go so far as to say that even if 98% of people have 'decent' lives and never want to ctb, the fact that 2% of people have miserable lives outweighs and makes irrelevant a greater amount of global happiness. Suffering has an existential density which is vastly more 'important' than the density of happiness.

Then the question could become one of weighing probabilities against each other. When does it become morally justifiable to bring a human into existence? When it only has a 5% chance of a miserable life (and, say, 20% chance of great life and 75% of decent one)? Or 10% chance of misery? 25%?

Personally I would put the percentage very low before moral justifiability comes into the picture. Like only 0.5% chance of miserable life before bringing life into the world can even be contemplated.

But this probability weighing is quixotic and impractical anyway. So bringing a life into the world cannot be morally justified on a practical level, since the progenitor could essentially be the proximate cause of a life of suffering. The relatively lower probability of having a bad existence is no excuse. It would be like a shooter shooting a gun into the air for fun, the bullet then descending into a nearby town and blinding someone. The shooter would still bear moral responsibility, having knowingly shot the gun in the general direction of a populated area, even if the chances were low that he would actually hit someone. The shooter saying 'but the probability of blinding someone was really low' wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
The moral of the story? Never shoot guns towards populated areas. I'll leave you to find the appropriate analogy when it comes to life.



.

 

[Ximon]

"Sleep is good, death is better; but of course, the best thing would to have never been born at all. "

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Sigh... you don't understand... here we go again...

Wheter you equate nirvana to non-existence, it doesn't matter. What matters is the futility of our lifes. An absolute content being has no desire, the dead have no desire. That absolute content being has also no problem to get killed, since it has not even the desire to remain alive. See what I mean? It's not the same thing, sure, but jezus christ are those two things closely related. The only reason I'm still alive is my mom and the fear of death, which can be reduced to what? A desire to not cause my mom pain and the instinctual desire to avoid death. It really is nothing more than desire brother. Just pls kill me.

Also, only the existent ones can desire to experience bliss. An infinite amount of children and animals have never been born. Should we grieve them? No. They don't even desire positive things (once again, a goddamn chemical. Life is nothing but a stupid joke).

I do understand. I've read the OP and this quote several times. The flaw in the reasoning returns, and it's not about desire. The flaw is in the infinite amount of children and animals that have never been born.

"Should we grieve them? No." I agree. Grief is about losing something. If it does not exist, it cannot be lost and therefore grieved. But then a again, a mother may grieve for what she could not attain, an unborn child she desires to give birth to. However, the child is not floating around in a formless state just waiting to slip in when the sperm and egg meet. It does not exist at all. That is non-existence -- it has not come into being. Therefore it cannot even be envied, because there is no being to envy. It is not blissful nor free of desire because it has no form or consciousness. It is not even free, because it does not exist. The mother imagines the unborn child, desires it, grieves the loss of what she cannot pour her love into. That is what grief is, the loss of the object into which one pours love. The imagined unborn child becomes an object to the mind, but that does not mean it exists.

"They don't even desire positive things..." By calling them "they," by giving them, as the Buddha would say, name-and-form, it is saying they exist, that they experience, that they function. Therefore they can potentially experience not desiring. Something that does not exist does none of those things, has no form, and has no experience, cannot be named or labeled because there is nothing to attach the name or label to. Which may have been why the introduction of the non-number zero into mathematics was so revolutionary, because it made the non-existent come into awareness, and become something to which a label can adhere. That does not mean, though, that it has a form or an experience. Does it have potential? If it does, then it exists in some way, and therefore is not truly zero or nothingness. Can it be envied if it does not exist? Only because it has been given a label and therefore exists. Then it is no longer zero or nothing. It is something -- a product of the imagination, with no consciousness or form, and no experience, the same as the unborn child which a mother imagines, and the infinite number of unborn children and animals you imagine and envy. Envy is a function of desire, and it seems to me that the object of your desire is zero, nothingness that is an object of the imagination that can be labeled and takes on form, function, and experience.

I'm not being an asshole here. You asked for an opinion of your analogy, and about non-existence being preferable to existence. The objects to which you attach non-existence, unborn children and animals, are not objects, they have no form, experience, or state of existence, and therefore cannot be superior nor inferior, nor the object of envy as they are not objects. They are in a state of pre-existence, have potential, and can become, therefore they have a state and in some way do exist. They have and are composed of kinetic energy, potential. Therefore they are matter. I almost said they are inherently not objects, but that would be an agreement that "they," these labeled-yet-non-existent ones in some way exist, because only something that exists can have an inherent condition.

If, having existed, you find it is superior to cease existing, that I get. Suffering ends. Desire ends. But for something that never existed, it never began nor ended, and has no potential to do either. Therefore, imo, "they" cannot provide support for your argument regarding preference.

 

[Promortalistic4Life]

It would be like a shooter shooting a gun into the air for fun, the bullet then descending into a nearby town and blinding someone. The shooter would still bear moral responsibility, having knowingly shot the gun in the general direction of a populated area, even if the chances were low that he would actually hit someone. The shooter saying 'but the probability of blinding someone was really low' wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
The moral of the story? Never shoot guns towards populated areas. I'll leave you to find the appropriate analogy when it comes to life.

Good god that analogy... I love it!! Thanks gonna definitely use that as an argument from now on.

 

[Alec]

I love this post and I agree with you on your views about procreation!

 

[Promortalistic4Life]

I do understand. I've read the OP and this quote several times. The flaw in the reasoning returns, and it's not about desire. The flaw is in the infinite amount of children and animals that have never been born.

"Should we grieve them? No." I agree. Grief is about losing something. If it does not exist, it cannot be lost and therefore grieved. But then a again, a mother may grieve for what she could not attain, an unborn child she desires to give birth to. However, the child is not floating around in a formless state just waiting to slip in when the sperm and egg meet. It does not exist at all. That is non-existence -- it has not come into being. Therefore it cannot even be envied, because there is no being to envy. It is not blissful nor free of desire because it has no form or consciousness. It is not even free, because it does not exist. The mother imagines the unborn child, desires it, grieves the loss of what she cannot pour her love into. That is what grief is, the loss of the object into which one pours love. The imagined unborn child becomes an object to the mind, but that does not mean it exists.

"They don't even desire positive things..." By calling them "they," by giving them, as the Buddha would say, name-and-form, it is saying they exist, that they experience, that they function. Therefore they can potentially experience not desiring. Something that does not exist does none of those things, has no form, and has no experience, cannot be named or labeled because there is nothing to attach the name or label to. Which may have been why the introduction of the non-number zero into mathematics was so revolutionary, because it made the non-existent come into awareness, and become something to which a label can adhere. That does not mean, though, that it has a form or an experience. Does it have potential? If it does, then it exists in some way, and therefore is not truly zero or nothingness. Can it be envied if it does not exist? Only because it has been given a label and therefore exists. Then it is no longer zero or nothing. It is something -- a product of the imagination, with no consciousness or form, and no experience, the same as the unborn child which a mother imagines, and the infinite number of unborn children and animals you imagine and envy. Envy is a function of desire, and it seems to me that the object of your desire is zero, nothingness that is an object of the imagination that can be labeled and takes on form, function, and experience.

I'm not being an asshole here. You asked for an opinion of your analogy, and about non-existence being preferable to existence. The objects to which you attach non-existence, unborn children and animals, are not objects, they have no form, experience, or state of existence, and therefore cannot be superior nor inferior, nor the object of envy as they are not objects. They are in a state of pre-existence, have potential, and can become, therefore they have a state and in some way do exist. They have and are composed of kinetic energy, potential. Therefore they are matter. I almost said they are inherently not objects, but that would be an agreement that "they," these labeled-yet-non-existent ones in some way exist, because only something that exists can have an inherent condition.

If, having existed, you find it is superior to cease existing, that I get. Suffering ends. Desire ends. But for something that never existed, it never began nor ended, and has no potential to do either. Therefore, imo, "they" cannot provide support for your argument regarding preference.

I mean, I have a libido but yet I'm not going around raping people (sry for the extreme example). Just bc a mother has a desire to procreate we shouldn't normalize it, just like the holocaust was normalized back in the days. In fact, in modern civilization we're expected to keep us at bay in a lot of situation, to prevent chaos and such. So if a mom suffers bc she can't have a child on her own... uhm, a lot of children would be more than happy to get adopted?? I get it, it's not "mAh gEnEs" but goddamn it we're better than that. I can't believe that humans are STILL this primitive and animalistic.

Maybe I'm just being stupid here, but I really do fail to see the bigger, significant difference, even though you explained it in a rigorous manner. Buddha and the unborn are fundamentally different, yes, but the fact that they both have no desires... no desire to live, no desire to be conciouss and experience and such... I just fail to see why it's EVER good to be born, when the unborn don't even have the desire for that. It's like giving them a burden they were uncapable to ask for. This reminds me of that one time a relative of mine couldn't reach me via phone, so she signed me a up to something I didn't give my consent. So of course I was mad at her.

Anyway, we're just getting into semantics here, which I was afraid would happen. But you do agree that, in practical terms, having desires suck, and once you're born you're gonna have desires. Additionaly, you will suffer, a lot, so why even giving birth?
I also highly dislike the concept of suicide, even though my name would suggest otherwise. A lot of natalists say "well if you hate your life this much just kill yourself. Problem solved." but it just shows a tremendous lack of compassion. No one should be obliged to CTB, EVER! If non of us would have ever been born, we wouldn't have to face the mental and physical agony that makes up suicide. This ain't OK.

Or, well, give us at least euthanasia (I mean the governments), as a means of compensation.

God, I am so fucking afraid to have to choke on a rope, or possibly end up as a vegetable. Where are our human rights? This is not OK. Allow us to escape our misery without any drastic complications for fuck's sake!!

 

[pthnrdnojvsc]

I generally agree with the basic idea.
Even if, on balance, the probability of being a 'happy', contented human who is glad it had a shot at life, is greater than being a human who wishes it hadn't been born because of suffering, etc, it still does not morally justify bringing a human into existence. Because the possibility of suffering due to any number of factors is of greater importance than any happiness that existence can bring. I would even go so far as to say that even if 98% of people have 'decent' lives and never want to ctb, the fact that 2% of people have miserable lives outweighs and makes irrelevant a greater amount of global happiness. Suffering has an existential density which is vastly more 'important' than the density of happiness.

Then the question could become one of weighing probabilities against each other. When does it become morally justifiable to bring a human into existence? When it only has a 5% chance of a miserable life (and, say, 20% chance of great life and 75% of decent one)? Or 10% chance of misery? 25%?

Personally I would put the percentage very low before moral justifiability comes into the picture. Like only 0.5% chance of miserable life before bringing life into the world can even be contemplated.

But this probability weighing is quixotic and impractical anyway. So bringing a life into the world cannot be morally justified on a practical level, since the progenitor could essentially be the proximate cause of a life of suffering. The relatively lower probability of having a bad existence is no excuse. It would be like a shooter shooting a gun into the air for fun, the bullet then descending into a nearby town and blinding someone. The shooter would still bear moral responsibility, having knowingly shot the gun in the general direction of a populated area, even if the chances were low that he would actually hit someone. The shooter saying 'but the probability of blinding someone was really low' wouldn't hold up in a court of law.
The moral of the story? Never shoot guns towards populated areas. I'll leave you to find the appropriate analogy when it comes to life.



.

Most natural deaths are extremely painful. So the logical thing is to at least have an exit strategy in case things go south
in a hurry. But that's extremely difficult to do to have a painless exit strategy so the better option for me imo is that i had never been born in the first place. I don't see a purpose for my life, all i see i suffering in the future for me and i need to ctb.

Most humans end up in a nursing home or hospice or hospital ,with reduced mental capacity, with incurable bedsores :

Who By Very Slow Decay

[Trigger warning: Death, pain, suffering, sadness] I. Some people, having completed the traditional forms of empty speculation – “What do you want to be when you grow up?”, &#8220…

web.archive.org

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

Anyway, we're just getting into semantics here, which I was afraid would happen. But you do agree that, in practical terms, having desires suck, and once you're born you're gonna have desires. Additionaly, you will suffer, a lot, so why even giving birth?

Well, it's not a matter of mere semantics. It's an analogy that you use to base passionate beliefs on, and if you want to convince people, then your argument is a crutch that doesn't hold up the weight of your doctrine. The unborn don't suffer or desire because they do not exist. One cannot put a burden on them until they do exist.

When you explain where you're coming from and why your stance is important to you, then it is authentic and more convincing, and allows for a conversation. When you use concepts over which the meaning cannot be agreed upon, then I think you get frustrated over the focus on what you call semantics. I'm not against your feelings, your experience, your wants, or your ideals, and I'm not against you, but I get the impression that's how you perceive the rejection of unsupportable logic. I think if you didn't rely on that analogy as a foundational premise, you'd have more productive conversations. When you get frustrated and sigh and talk down to someone when they don't understand what is not logical, that doesn't make them look stupid except to you, and in fact backfires on you. When you speak from the heart about what bothers you and what solutions you seek, then you can be heard.

I get the impression it's important to you to be agreed with. I get that. I agree with your feelings, and many of your thoughts, impressions and ideas. Just not the analogy. I won't agree with it. I think you're clinging to it and it gets in the way of your goals. That's constructive criticism. If you don't except it, I'll live, I'm not married to being right nor to this entire issue, I will move on from it because it's not my thing. But it is your thing, you won't move on from it any time soon because it's important to you, and in time you'll figure out for yourself whether the analogy helps or harms your purpose.

There are other things that I do agree with.

Yes, I agree that having desires sucks, and that desire likely begins in the womb. Simply experiencing physical hunger means that one will desire food, and suffer if they don't get it.

As far as why someone would give birth when it will result in suffering, it seems very black-and-white, but it's complicated. People are animals, and animals have instincts and drives, including procreation. We do a lot of things that are not rational and that harm rather than serve. I'd be willing to bet you do some such things. So I caution against getting on a moral high horse, it's also what evangelical Christians and fundamentalist Muslims do. I've been an evangelical Christian, I know what it feels like to feel so right and so righteous. I get that you're offended (at least that's what I sense) that you were born and therefore made to suffer, and that you were created without your consent -- which you could not give if you did not exist, just saying.

I simply recommend that you get a broader perspective to support your stance, and as you do, reevaluate if it still holds water. If you're going to bring up Nirvana or Buddhism, learn what it is, not just what you picked up, read something like the book In the Buddha's Words. Read The Laws of Emotion, you don't even have to read the book, there's a scholarly article published in 1984, I think, that is a free PDF and sufficiently covers it, then you can start to get an idea why we pursue things and make bad and irrational decisions, and how it's not nearly as much in our conscious, logic-based control as we'd like it to be. Learn tools of analysis such as the fallacies of logic, and apply them to the assertions of the guy who founded the Efilism movement and see if he's as truly logical and convincing as he presents himself to be -- does he hook into emotions, wants, and unresolved pain, or are his arguments truly logical?

Those are my thoughts. I know that when you posted you were seeking like-minded folks, and you've gotten some such replies. My focus has been on something particular that you asked for, just one portion of an entire post. But I think it's a significant portion because the analogy is meant to convince. I think it does more harm than good to your goals. As part of my academic background, I have an extensive background of writing workshops that had a foundation of constructive criticism, which is about setting the ego aside and focusing on the work itself and whether or not it effectively gets through to an audience. I'm not beating you up, I'm constructively criticising your message and its logic. I don't intent to knock you or your goals down or to destroy. Somebody who already agrees with you likely won't give a fuck, and you'll just get confirmation of any biases you have. If that's what you seek and my input is of no value to you, *shrug.* I'm not offended and I'm not attached to this issue or to being right.

 

[falloutcarter13]

Sigh... you don't understand... here we go again...

Wheter you equate nirvana to non-existence, it doesn't matter. What matters is the futility of our lifes. An absolute content being has no desire, the dead have no desire. That absolute content being has also no problem to get killed, since it has not even the desire to remain alive. See what I mean? It's not the same thing, sure, but jezus christ are those two things closely related. The only reason I'm still alive is my mom and the fear of death, which can be reduced to what? A desire to not cause my mom pain and the instinctual desire to avoid death. It really is nothing more than desire brother. Just pls kill me.

Also, only the existent ones can desire to experience bliss. An infinite amount of children and animals have never been born. Should we grieve them? No. They don't even desire positive things (once again, a goddamn chemical. Life is nothing but a stupid joke).

Well, you're contradicting yourself tbh. You clearly see non-existence as a positive, and I don't disagree. But you're projecting the qualities of existence onto non-existence, as in the lack of desire in the non-existent. That's like saying the ice in the empty ice cube tray is colder than real ice.

Not busting your balls, you've clearly studied theory and put a lot of thought into this. But there are limitations to higher dimensional concepts at work here, limitations the physiological human brain cannot overcome. I see this a lot, here and elsewhere...people wanting to believe they fully understand a concept that's simply beyond all of us, wanting to believe it so bad that they build walls against evidence/thoughts/feelings/beliefs to the contrary. I sincerely hope you find whatever it is you're looking for, but while you're here, try to stay open minded and reasonable. If you're at the point of craving death, there's no benefit to deluding yourself into thinking you've got answers that aren't possible to obtain while you're still here anymore, and I base that on your own argument - the desire to know the unknowable will not matter to you after death, so might as well let it go now before you get there.

 

[catscradle]

I wouldn't say I'm antinatalist but as a consent advocate I sympathize with their ideas

 

[GoodPersonEffed]

But you're projecting the qualities of existence onto non-existence, as in the lack of desire in the non-existent. That's like saying the ice in the empty ice cube tray is colder than real ice.

This.

 

[Deardaddy]

I am Christian turned Antinatalism which is a philiostrophy that presents the the world is a Frankenstein experiment. I do not deny Jesus but I can't picture a loving God in a nightmare world.

 

[Blue LIPS]

I thought this might be an interesting thread or discussion but then I saw this...


Yeah, I'm not about that life. *eyeroll* Flex your belief system all you like, but you don't have to be a rude asshat about it. You've just come across as some sort of edgy teen who has just discovered the concept of philosophy. Shit attitude man.

Uh ohhhhh, someone is going to report you now and you'll receive a warning

 

[falloutcarter13]

Uh ohhhhh, someone is going to report you now and you'll receive a warning

This is an official WARNING
Infraction: @Emily_Numb you are guilty of telling it like it is. Bad puppy.

 

[EmptyTrashCan]

Sigh... you don't understand... here we go again...

Wheter you equate nirvana to non-existence, it doesn't matter. What matters is the futility of our lifes. An absolute content being has no desire, the dead have no desire. That absolute content being has also no problem to get killed, since it has not even the desire to remain alive. See what I mean? It's not the same thing, sure, but jezus christ are those two things closely related. The only reason I'm still alive is my mom and the fear of death, which can be reduced to what? A desire to not cause my mom pain and the instinctual desire to avoid death. It really is nothing more than desire brother. Just pls kill me.

Also, only the existent ones can desire to experience bliss. An infinite amount of children and animals have never been born. Should we grieve them? No. They don't even desire positive things (once again, a goddamn chemical. Life is nothing but a stupid joke).


There are no words than can capture how badly your claim describes me. Same Mr., same...

Let me see If I got this right... becuase it's quite interesting; Are you saying that procreation is a cruel act that only promotes suffering of beings that didnt even choose to live in the first place. In other words, since a non-existence being can not suffer from anything becuase its less than life, its literally nothing, its the fact that they dont choose anything, neither life, (and therefore suffering), that makes procreation disgusting?

Correct me if wrong please :)

 

[esse_est_percipi]

I am Christian turned Antinatalism which is a philiostrophy that presents the the world is a Frankenstein experiment. I do not deny Jesus but I can't picture a loving God in a nightmare world.

Do you mean you're a Christian turned antinatalist which is a philosophy that presents the world as a frankenstein experiment?

Sorry, I'm just being a pedantic jerk.
However, I'm still not sure I understand what you're getting at with the frankenstein stuff...

 

[Blue LIPS]

This is an official WARNING
Infraction: @Emily_Numb you are guilty of telling it like it is. Bad puppy.

Damnnnnn that shit is LEGIT lol

Nah I knew someone that did that and that's what happened. We shall seeeeee.

 

[Deardaddy]

Let me see If I got this right... becuase it's quite interesting; Are you saying that procreation is a cruel act that only promotes suffering of beings that didnt even choose to live in the first place. In other words, since a non-existence being can not suffer from anything becuase its less than life, its literally nothing, its the fact that they dont choose anything, neither life, (and therefore suffering), that makes procreation disgusting?

Correct me if wrong please :)

Humans are experimental creatures for the rulers of the world. Creation is disgusting..

 

[falloutcarter13]

Do you mean you're a Christian turned antinatalist which is a philosophy that presents the world as a frankenstein experiment?

Sorry, I'm just being a pedantic jerk.
However, I'm still not sure I understand what you're getting at with the frankenstein stuff...

S'okay, I don't think they knew what they were getting at, either Tried super hard tho, didn't they?

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I get what you're saying though if you asked me I think I would say I still want kids eventually. This is because the desire to breed is the result of yet another chemical reaction. In many people, this desire turns to longing and it can supersede all rational thought so I feel there's no need to fault people for wanting kids if they can't control this want. Good on you or anyone else who seems to be able to control it though.

I am aware that any offspring I do end up having are doomed to suffer but in a way, that just makes me a little happier knowing I get to inflict suffering. This is probably why I should CTB though.

 

[falloutcarter13]

I am aware that any offspring I do end up having are doomed to suffer but in a way, that just makes me a little happier knowing I get to inflict suffering. This is probably why I should CTB though.

I dunno if you meant this to be funny, but I literally lol'd

 

[Blue LIPS]

I get what you're saying though if you asked me I think I would say I still want kids eventually. This is because the desire to breed is the result of yet another chemical reaction. In many people, this desire turns to longing and it can supersede all rational thought so I feel there's no need to fault people for wanting kids if they can't control this want. Good on you or anyone else who seems to be able to control it though.

I am aware that any offspring I do end up having are doomed to suffer but in a way, that just makes me a little happier knowing I get to inflict suffering. This is probably why I should CTB though.

Weird warped perception...

I've contemplated not wanting kids either (a lot of hereditary issues) but I also can arm them or help guide them with the tools I wish I had to heal when I needed them the most. I am the first of my family lineage to get help and know reasons as to the "why's" so we'll see if that can somewhat break the cycle, or help it to succeed.

 

[Dr Iron Arc]

I dunno if you meant this to be funny, but I literally lol'd

I didn't really mean it that way but I can see how it is. I'm glad it helped a bit.

 

[Wayfaerer]

I consider myself a half-antinatalist. There are couples who are stable (romantically, financially, mentally...) who can bring life into this world without ruining their offspring's lives. However, for everyone else, it's better that they don't procreate.

 

[Emily_Numb]

This is an official WARNING
Infraction: @Emily_Numb you are guilty of telling it like it is. Bad puppy.

Well that sucks.

 

[Garbage Person]

I'm so glad @GoodPersonEffed @Emily_Numb and @falloutcarter13 already pointed out the contradictions, hypocrisy, and especially the high horse stance seeking validation. My jimmies were rustled a bit after I read this post yesterday seeing as I'm a "retard" breeder and I almost made an emotional based response that would have certainly resulted in a ban, but I bit my tongue, reminded myself that I'm not on 4chan, and moved on. While I recognise that the philosophy mostly focuses on consent, there is always the fact that they focus on inevitable suffering as if they've found no value in life, but they clearly value sharing the toxic philosophy and all the likes that ensue. These threads always result in ego fluffing circle jerks, and the OP will likely abandon ship now that they've been btfo with logic based response. They got their likes. Why is this even in suicide discussion anyway? Antinatalists...