Discussion The only loving parents are the ones who don't have any children

[suicidalloser]

Exactly, parents should be responsible for their children, financially and in all ways, for their entire life. Do you know the phrase "A puppy isn't just for Christmas"? I read it in a book on antinatalism called Ever Deeper Honesty.

Well, whatever, I guess I will have to go back to YouTube, just with another account (for personal reasons). I can understand that is not allowed on this forum to state that reproduction is a crime (which it is, I insist), because people here are vulnerable and in pain.

That's right. They get and keep their pets forever, yet will drop their own child on the streets without a 1st, nevermind 7th thought about it.
First pets get euthanasia, yet we're denied that peaceful exit. I will never comprehend such backwardness.

If you feel like your life is not worth living then that is your own opinion that you are very entitled to.
What you are not entitled to, however, is forming that same opinion about any and especially everyone else.

Considering this is in larger text for emphasis—goes both ways. Look in mirror and ponder if delaying suicide is the best course of action.

 

[Disappointered]

If you feel like your life is not worth living then that is your own opinion that you are very entitled to.
What you are not entitled to, however, is forming that same opinion about any and especially everyone else.

I posited that if happiness for some comes at the price of suffering for others, then that happiness is not worth the price. I suggest it is possible that this price is imposed on unwilling participants, in which case I would oppose it. Some people would make that gamble voluntarily. I wouldn't and since I believe this world of experiences is heavily weighted toward unpleasantness, I suggest people who want to impose that gamble on non-consenting contestants are evil.

 

[Valky]

Considering this is in larger text for emphasis—goes both ways. Look in mirror and ponder if delaying suicide is the best course of action.

That was unintentional but I do not get your point here, what are you trying to say?

 

[suicidalloser]

That was unintentional but I do not get your point here, what are you trying to say?

Was it? So why was it not corrected?
That's what I'm saying.

 

[Valky]

I posited that if happiness for some comes at the price of suffering for others, then that happiness is not worth the price. I suggest it is possible that this price is imposed on unwilling participants, in which case I would oppose it. Some people would make that gamble voluntarily. I wouldn't and since I believe this world of experiences is heavily weighted toward unpleasantness, I suggest people who want to impose that gamble on non-consenting contestants are evil.

Annihilating every existente wouldn't restore balance and neither would sterilisation.

You can't blame good parents for the actions of bad parents.

Was it? So why was it not corrected?
That's what I'm saying.

Because I simply hadn't noticed until you quoted it.

Are you telling me to kill myself?

 

[suicidalloser]

Annihilating every existente wouldn't restore balance and neither would sterilisation.

You can't blame good parents for the actions of bad parents.

'Restore balance'? What is this? FF6?
And what's a good parent, in the eyes of tough love? Right.

 

[Disappointered]

Annihilating every existente wouldn't restore balance and neither would sterilisation.

You can't blame good parents for the actions of bad parents.

I'm not wedded to the idea of restoring balance but I agree it seems difficult to achieve. However, annihilation resolves that problem and doesn't have anything to do with restoring balance. Anyway, I'm not sure if you understood my point but basically I don't think people should gamble with anyone aside from themselves.

 

[Valky]

I'm not wedded to the idea of restoring balance but I agree it seems difficult to achieve. However, annihilation resolves that problem and doesn't have anything to do with restoring balance. Anyway, I'm not sure if you understood my point but basically I don't think people should gamble with anyone aside from themselves.

In that case, annihilation sounds more like a punishment than a relieve.

I get your point, but it doesn't really shake my statements that I have previously made.

 

[Valky]

Giving a pass to those who make others suffer?
You get what's coming.

Look. I don't have time for some petty talk.

This is a discussion thread. If you are gonna be butt-hurt by reading someone's opposing opinion then maybe just scroll next time. This is not the place to start a fight.
I am Open to any kind of discussion but not to some sort of personal fight.

 

[suicidalloser]

Look. I don't have time for some petty talk.

This is a discussion thread. If you are gonna be butt-hurt by reading someone's opposing opinion then maybe just scroll next time. This is not the place to start a fight.
I am Open to any kind of discussion but not to some sort of personal fight.

Look, I suggest you find a poison to imbibe right quick.

 

[Valky]

Look, I suggest you find a poison to imbibe right quick.

I hope you enjoyed your short stay here. :)

 

[suicidalloser]

I hope you enjoyed your short stay here. :)

says the bitch living until 70 still wishing to die.

 

[Valky]

says the bitch living until 70 still wishing to die.

Yup and I will have kids before that in case of the right circumstances. :)

 

[Pluto]

I have no choice but to be triggering here, but I firmly believe we need to be mindful of psychological projection.

We have seen that some over-the-top Christian opponents of LGBTQ rights are pretty obviously repressed, closeted homosexuals themselves, externalising the drama of their inner conflict. Similarly, a lot of people waging war against all parents are likely frustrated over the repression of their own 'inner child', or in denial over envy of missing out on the romantic ideal of happy, healthy family life. There's a high probability that such people will end up parents themselves before the age of 40. (I have a sister who is a prime example, and hence now I have a niece too.)

I'm deliberately taking this angle, even though we could waste energy engaging in shallow discussions about politics, the sins of governments/corporations/billionaires, overpopulation, ecology, etc. Such a discussion will achieve absolutely nothing on any of those fronts.

The immediate concern is serious harm being done to already-suffering parents here, who arguably have unique grounds to avoid CTB if at all possible, not to mention scaring off more mature members of our community. And all the while, the most militant anti-parent crusaders may be merely waging a futile battle to deny their own authentic feelings.

 

[Daxter_87]

I have no choice but to be triggering here, but I firmly believe we need to be mindful of psychological projection.

We have seen that some over-the-top Christian opponents of LGBTQ rights are pretty obviously repressed, closeted homosexuals themselves, externalising the drama of their inner conflict. Similarly, a lot of people waging war against all parents are likely frustrated over the repression of their own 'inner child', or in denial over envy of missing out on the romantic ideal of happy, healthy family life. There's a high probability that such people will end up parents themselves before the age of 40. (I have a sister who is a prime example, and hence now I have a niece too.)

I'm deliberately taking this angle, even though we could waste energy engaging in shallow discussions about politics, the sins of governments/corporations/billionaires, overpopulation, ecology, etc. Such a discussion will achieve absolutely nothing on any of those fronts.

The immediate concern is serious harm being done to already-suffering parents here, who arguably have unique grounds to avoid CTB if at all possible, not to mention scaring off more mature members of our community. And all the while, the most militant anti-parent crusaders may be merely waging a futile battle to deny their own authentic feelings.

Yeah, let's not stay on the subject being discussed, let's attack the messenger instead of refuting the message. Look, what you say of ending up being a parent before the age of 40, if that happens to me, I'm nothing but an utter fool. I'm going to get a vasectomy, I'm doing everything I can not to reproduce.

You think that anyone who questions the act of reproducing is just projecting their own woes, well, of course we have been hurt throughout our lives to come to this realization. Now, does that make the argument any less valid? Stay on the subject, deal with the argument, not with the messenger.

Edit: no, I'm not a repressed wannabe parent, I've never wanted to have children.

 

[HermitLonerGuy]

Pls remmbr tht ur claims r opinns & r subjctve

Jst bcse othrs dsgree ds nt mke thm wrng -- thy jst crry a diffrnt opinn 2 u

St8tng thse opinns as fct & closng ppl wth diffrng opinns dwn = crossng a in2 proselytizng whch = nt permittd on ths frum

Please remember that your claims are opinions & are subjective Just because others disagree does not make them wrong -- they just carry a different opinion to u Stating these opinions as fact & closing off
people with differing opinions than your own = crossing a into proselytizing which is not permitted on this forum

= also importnt 2 remmbr tht rpe = a recognisd crme & thre r mny membrs on SaSu wh/ r victms of tht -- sme of thse wll also b parnts

S/ cmparng thm 2 rapsts = nt helpfl 2 n.e of ths ppl.

It's also important to remember that rape is a recognized crime & there are many members on SaSu who are victims of that -- some of those will also be parents so comparing them to rapists is not helpful to any of these people.

 

[Valky]

Yeah, let's not stay on the subject being discussed, let's attack the messenger instead of refuting the message. Look, what you say of ending up being a parent before the age of 40, if that happens to me, I'm nothing but an utter fool. I'm going to get a vasectomy, I'm doing everything I can not to reproduce.

You think that anyone who questions the act of reproducing is just projecting their own woes, well, of course we have been hurt throughout our lives to come to this realization. Now, does that make the argument any less valid? Stay on the subject, deal with the argument, not with the messenger.

Edit: no, I'm not a repressed wannabe parent, I've never wanted to have children.

While I do strongly agree that discussions NEED to be kept objective and not made personal, I really don't see the messenger being attacked here, to be fair.

What they said is very very true. While there is of course nothing to be said to your own opinion about this subject since you are entitled to one, it is still important to note, that this kind of statement can be really harmful to other people on this site. Many are indeed parents and it shouldn't be in anyone's interest on here to slander someone's decision about having kids or not.

 

[Spiritual survivor]

I disagree, but it would be nice if more loving parents who are able to properly rear their children had kids. There are many parents who just don't actually raise their child/children which puts the kids in danger of undesirable outcomes as adults setting them up for problems and painful lives. I do understand that we are heading for world dictatorship or basically as they progress the agenda for one world government it will not be a desireable world to live in for future generations, but it will fail because it goes against God's order. Man can't be the ruler over man, it has never worked every time they try. People have to be self determining and be able to fulfill their potential and self actualize. Because of living under dictatorship/authoritarianism, we are having fewer and fewer people being able to live high quality lives and fulfill their aspirations.

 

[saddestbunny]

Yup and I will have kids before that in case of the right circumstances. :)

yuck, u wanna die and ur still okay bringing someone else into this? I'm not sure how you can want to die and at the same time think you're entitled to make someone else have that same experience

also whoever said parents of rape are also parents, I don't think anyone can argue that baby was meant to be. obviously that action is horrid and the life created in such an action would experience suffering from only having 1 parent / automatically getting a hard start at life as many victims are younger and /or ill equipped to deal with raising a child. Wishing for someone to survive and grow up in this environment seems bad to me

There's a high probability that such people will end up parents themselves before the age of 40. (I have a sister who is a prime example, and hence now I have a niece too.)

I find it funny that people's defense to others saying creating suffering is bad is "you will do it too!" classic

 

[Daxter_87]

yuck, u wanna die and ur still okay bringing someone else into this? I'm not sure how you can want to die and at the same time think you're entitled to make someone else have that same experience

Yeah, this is something that I simply cannot comprehend at all. Like, a person is suicidal, they know the shittiness of life, yet they want to bring children into this world.

I'm not sure if I'm risking getting banned, because apparently I can't say this. Perhaps all I have to do is say the magic words "to me" or "personally", and we are good.

I find it funny that people's defense to others saying creating suffering is bad is "you will do it too!" classic

I mean, that's just such a cheap slander, this person uses their sister as an example/proof/evidence that all antinatalists will eventually reproduce. Your sister did it, fine. Does that mean that the rest of us are going to do it? If you can't come up with an actual argument, that's okay, but don't resort to this.

 

[Disappointered]

In that case, annihilation sounds more like a punishment than a relieve.

I get your point, but it doesn't really shake my statements that I have previously made.

If you're saying that you don't have a problem with forcing future people to play a lottery because some of them might be winners even if that means some others (most imo) might be losers, then I guess you're right, it doesn't shake your statements.

I say total annihilation because of the possibility of interdependent experiences but obviously if happy people want to keep living their happy lives then they should do so, provided it doesn't risk producing more suffering for someone else who didn't agree to take on that suffering or, in the case of future humans, who didn't agree to play the lottery. But hey, maybe some people can perfectly predict that their children will indeed lead happy, fulfilling lives.

Since I don't think it's implausible that human happiness is contingent on human suffering, I wouldn't risk creating suffering in order to create happiness, even if that happiness was guaranteed.

 

[Valky]

yuck, u wanna die and ur still okay bringing someone else into this? I'm not sure how you can want to die and at the same time think you're entitled to make someone else have that same experience

I am not sure if you have read my previous statement and you also should not judge, if you don't know my full story/plan on it.

If you're saying that you don't have a problem with forcing future people to play a lottery because some of them might be winners even if that means some others (most imo) might be losers, then I guess you're right, it doesn't shake your statements.

That is not what I said. Yes, illness doesn't choose people but a parents job is to make a kids life as great as possible. If I can provide a great environment for someone, why not share it?

I say total annihilation because of the possibility of interdependent experiences but obviously if happy people want to keep living their happy lives then they should do so, provided it doesn't risk producing more suffering for someone else who didn't agree to take on that suffering or, in the case of future humans, who didn't agree to play the lottery. But hey, maybe some people can perfectly predict that their children will indeed lead happy, fulfilling lives.

I just generally don't think that others should get to decide about who lives and dies in the sense of already being on this earth.
You don't know these people. But you know your child. You can't change these people but you can raise your child right. It's all about the ability that you have.

Since I don't think it's implausible that human happiness is contingent on human suffering, I wouldn't risk creating suffering in order to create happiness, even if that happiness was guaranteed.

I really don't think that they are related in that way. More of a coexistence than a dependency.

 

[Daxter_87]

If I can provide a great environment for someone, why not share it?

What is a great environment for you might be a hellhole for your children. The fact that that you find it good doesn't mean that your children will. Yes, they might find it good too, but there's the risk that they might be the kind of person who finds all of this disgusting. And maybe they will ask you why you brought them into this world, and maybe they will blame you, and maybe they will even hate you for it.

You don't know these people. But you know your child. You can't change these people but you can raise your child right. It's all about the ability that you have.

Yes, it's harder to push one's beliefs into other already existing people than to teach your children whatever ideas you have. You want to impose your beliefs on your children. Maybe they don't like that, maybe they disagree with you and that doesn't mean that they are wrong and should get punished. Because, at the end of the day, raising a child is all about punishment and reward, which is the method to train your children to behave and think the way you want them to behave and think.

 

[Valky]

What is a great environment for you might be a hellhole for your children. The fact that that you find it good doesn't mean that your children will. Yes, they might find it good too, but there's the risk that they might be the kind of person who finds all of this disgusting. And maybe they will ask you why you brought them into this world, and maybe they will blame you, and maybe they will even hate you for it.

That is why I am not talking about a great environment for myself. Parents need to make sacrifices including disturbing the peace of their own environment for the sake of their kid's.
Someone's own children are born into the circumstances that you have provided for them. They can't really find it disgusting, if that is all they have ever know (Positively speaking, I know this can also be the ground for abuse and more) but even if they do, it is not like anything is set in stone.
Of course, I can't take all the hardships away that a kid of mine is going to face in their lives but I can ensure that they are ready to confront those as best as possible. If my child would ask me why I brought them into this world, I would say the same things that I have said in my first response to this thread.

Yes, it's harder to push one's beliefs into other already existing people than to teach your children whatever ideas you have. You want to impose your beliefs on your children. Maybe they don't like that, maybe they disagree with you and that doesn't mean that they are wrong and should get punished. Because, at the end of the day, raising a child is all about punishment and reward, which is the method to train your children to behave and think the way you want them to behave and think.

I do not want to impose my ideas onto my children and neither do I intent to punish them in a way you are somewhat accusing me of. You don't know me and I am sorry that it seems that your parents have failed you in such a way but I would never strive to be someone like them.

Instead of imposing ideas, children should be given structure and the possibility to form their own opinion. Yes, in most cases children carry over the same ideas their parents do but that doesn't necessarily mean that they did not have the freedom of choice to do so.
Rewards and punishment are the old ways of raising not only children but also dogs. Rewards, obviously treats and punishment could result of stepping on a paw or in this case hitting your child. Of course, especially for kids 'negative' punishment is not only bound to physical abuse but also emotional abuse.
Parents need to educate themselves better on which 'methods' could reinforce a feeling of negative punishment in their kids since many of those are easily overlooked.
You don't need to abuse your kid in order to raise them right. A child needs to be raised with love and respect and not fear.

 

[Daxter_87]

That is why I am not talking about a great environment for myself. Parents need to make sacrifices including disturbing the peace of their own environment for the sake of their kid's.
Someone's own children are born into the circumstances that you have provided for them. They can't really find it disgusting, if that is all they have ever know (Positively speaking, I know this can also be the ground for abuse and more) but even if they do, it is not like anything is set in stone.
Of course, I can't take all the hardships away that a kid of mine is going to face in their lives but I can ensure that they are ready to confront those as best as possible. If my child would ask me why I brought them into this world, I would say the same things that I have said in my first response to this thread.

I do not want to impose my ideas onto my children and neither do I intent to punish them in a way you are somewhat accusing me of. You don't know me and I am sorry that it seems that your parents have failed you in such a way but I would never strive to be someone like them.

Instead of imposing ideas, children should be given structure and the possibility to form their own opinion. Yes, in most cases children carry over the same ideas their parents do but that doesn't necessarily mean that they did not have the freedom of choice to do so.
Rewards and punishment are the old ways of raising not only children but also dogs. Rewards, obviously treats and punishment could result of stepping on a paw or in this case hitting your child. Of course, especially for kids 'negative' punishment is not only bound to physical abuse but also emotional abuse.
Parents need to educate themselves better on which 'methods' could reinforce a feeling of negative punishment in their kids since many of those are easily overlooked.
You don't need to abuse your kid in order to raise them right. A child needs to be raised with love and respect and not fear.

The environment could also be life itself. A person might find life acceptable or good, but it's not guaranteed that their offspring will feel the same. You say that nothing is set in stone, but actually there are quite a few things that are. For instance, there is no easy way out of life, meaning that, if your children want out, they won't be able to (or they will have to resort to risky methods). They will also be forced to go to school and, eventually, they will probably have to get a job to survive; perhaps you find that acceptable for yourself, and that's totally fine and respectable, but they might find it obnoxious to be forced to do such things.

I also forgot to mention that having children is always a non-consensual act, as it's impossible for the unborn to consent to come into existence.

 

[Dot]

The environment could also be life itself. A person might find life acceptable or good, but it's not guaranteed that their offspring will feel the same. You say that nothing is set in stone, but actually there are quite a few things that are. For instance, there is no easy way out of life, meaning that, if your children want out, they won't be able to (or they will have to resort to risky methods). They will also be forced to go to school and, eventually, they will probably have to get a job to survive; perhaps you find that acceptable for yourself, and that's totally fine and respectable, but they might find it obnoxious to be forced to do such things.

I also forgot to mention that having children is always a non-consensual act, as it's impossible for the unborn to consent to come into existence.

& thy mght also Njoy lfe -- sme ppl d/ nt wnt thr lfe bt mny ppl d/

Am qute sre tht only a livng thng cn gve or rfuse cnsent tho

Th/ argmnt gs bth wys bt ths particulr thred = @ th/ xtrme end of 1 argmnt/deb8

 

[Disappointered]

I am not sure if you have read my previous statement and you also should not judge, if you don't know my full story/plan on it.

That is not what I said. Yes, illness doesn't choose people but a parents job is to make a kids life as great as possible. If I can provide a great environment for someone, why not share it?

I just generally don't think that others should get to decide about who lives and dies in the sense of already being on this earth.
You don't know these people. But you know your child. You can't change these people but you can raise your child right. It's all about the ability that you have.

I really don't think that they are related in that way. More of a coexistence than a dependency.

Like I said, maybe some people think they can predict that their offspring will have enjoyable lives that won't contribute to anyone else's suffering. I have trouble believe that.

And maybe some people believe that happiness and misery coexist but are not interdependent.

If I held these beliefs at 100% I'd breed and be happy that people like me are continuing to breed.

If I held them at 99.99 repeat % I wouldn't risk creating suffering.

 

[avoid_slow_death]

Yup and I will have kids before that in case of the right circumstances. :)

Brilliant response @Valky . And at first, I somewhat agreed with OP. But after the hostility on this post towards any dissenting opinion, I have to say I am against OPs initial post.

As a child who was told bluntly at a fairly young age by one of my parents that they didn't want me and I ruined their lives, I agreed at first. But the other parent literally sacrificed part of their health both mentally and physically both worrying about and trying to keep me safe. Do I wish my mom would have aborted me? EVERY. FUCKING. DAY. But still, that woman poured all her love and caring into not only me, but anyone else who she came into contact with EVEN THOUGH she was unhappy herself. Why? Because even if she didn't love herself much, (and she didn't, everyone else adored her, except her,) she still felt that she would try and make HER corner of the world a better place. So if you want to call someone selfish and evil that has that much love in their heart, perhaps you need to look at yourself and ask who the real evil here is. Because it's looking right back at you you fucking monster!

 

[TheDog_]

Honestly I'd like to discuss antinatilism with you further if ur willing :) polite conversation and all

 

[TransilvanianHunger]

The anti-natalist views on this thread are quite frankly embarrassing, and I say this as someone who agrees with anti-natalism. @Pluto is right, a lot of the anti-parent discourse here reeks of projection and frustration more than anything else.

If you are anti-natalist, your argument is ultimately against suffering. I believe that suffering is not desirable, and non-existence is preferable because in any existence there will be more suffering than happiness. I think that's a fairly standard anti-natalist framing of the situation. Add the usual disclaimers of not wanting to have children and all that.

With that in mind, what is it with anti-natalists who spend their time bashing parents over the head with their beliefs? If you are against suffering, what is the point of using these arguments to berate or shame those who have reproduced? Are you not causing more suffering, assuming the parent actually loves their child, by calling them all sorts of horrible names? If someone asks me, I'm willing to explain my views to them, but who am I exactly to launch into spouting moralising bullshit about how every parent is evil and I'm so much smarter than them? Causing more suffering in your quest to let the world know that you're against suffering. Bloody idiotic.