User Controls
You would be happier with kids
-
2021-10-31 at 4:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Seriously,
Is like saying rape isn't a serious issue so long as every rape victim receives sufficient hush money. Positive life experiences are just the hush money paid up to normies not to make a fuss about suffering they've endured.
Suffering and joy may seem like opposites but actually are paradoxically different facets of the same hyperspacial structure.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-10-31 at 5:04 AM UTC
Originally posted by Obbe Suffering and joy may seem like opposites but actually are paradoxically different facets of the same hyperspacial structure.
Sure, and that structure is shitty on account of the fact that it contains suffering. Forcing someone to exist within that structure would be an act of cruelty.
"Health and illness may seem like opposites but actually are paradoxically different facets of the same physiological structure, therefore intentionally giving people brain cancer and AIDS is good, actually." -
2021-10-31 at 2:29 PM UTCTIL HTS is a Jane Buddhist who only drinks rainwater and wears clothes made completely from fallen leaves.
Imagine the hypocrisy of these people who claim not to be sociopathic child abusers then have the audacity not to have abortions
Just imagine star trek
Lucy you troll so much it's hard to tell if serious. All I know is my son is the cure for the disease than is the world and my jism made it happen so that ain't not bad -
2021-10-31 at 4:56 PM UTC
-
2021-10-31 at 6:14 PM UTC"Please stick your penis into this Child Machine."The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-10-31 at 6:16 PM UTC
-
2021-10-31 at 8:05 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Rather.
When I was 14 my brothers 23 year old shagged me
But I was hell of into it. and my other brother and his friend saw her coming out of my bedroom putting her top on with me and the blanket wrapped around me walking her to the door. I got high fives in 1980 for that.
Do you think that is rape as well? I don't. it's different with men or young men. it's known that jedi fathers will take their sons at age 13 to a hooker just after their bar mitzvah. usually a goy hooker cause it's OK to them. -
2021-10-31 at 10:45 PM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai Nobody believes they've suffered? Sure, maybe most people believe that the suffering they've experienced was worth it, but when comparing 0 suffering to even a lifetime with .00001% suffering… having children still means unnecessarily inflicting that .00001% suffering. If I stab you in the asshole with a rusty serrated blade and then give you a billion dollars, is that okay? The billion dollars obviously outweighs any of the harm I did by perforating your shitter, right? The suffering is temporary and now you have a billion dollars! You'd be stupid to say otherwise! I'm not a monster for stabbing you in the asshole, you got a billion fucking dollars out of it stop complaining.
Poor analogy because there's no necessary relation between the billion dollars and the asshole stabbing.
Better analogy: medical intervention in the case where consent can't be obtained, e.g. delivering CPR to an unconscious person. Yes, there's risk of injury but the risk is _necessary_ for the intervention. Same with kids, it's not some arbitrary desire to inflict suffering on children that's justified by them potentially having a worthwhile life, it's that suffering is a necessary risk that bound up in the possibility of having a good life.
If you want to argue that most net effects of most children is negative then I'll agree with you. But it's disingenuous to completely ignore the potential positive outcomes, both for the given child and society at large, when considering if having kids is justified. -
2021-10-31 at 11:09 PM UTCA better analogy would be people who embrace depopulation, but would be the last ones to step up to volunteer to be depopulated.
-
2021-10-31 at 11:49 PM UTCWe should have a 1-2 child rule like China did. Too many retards having litters of kids like dogs.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire!
-
2021-11-01 at 1:04 AM UTC
-
2021-11-01 at 2:06 AM UTCprobably but i don't have any kids
my keyboard feels wonky -
2021-11-01 at 2:26 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ A better analogy would be people who embrace depopulation, but would be the last ones to step up to volunteer to be depopulated.
An antinatalist clinging to life is less hypocritical than you imply. Being born is cruel in part specifically because you die (or possibly don't die - you could be immortal, but that's equally or more horrifying). Nobody wants to die. Nobody wants to have to worry about dying. And the only way to avoid existential crises pursuant to mortality? Not being born in the first place. Death is cruel, and death is a part of life. Anything you give life must necessarily die (or not, and that's arguably worse). Life is a catch 22, and 'making babies" is plucking souls from the aether and forcing that catch 22 upon them.
Trash. Horrible. Worst species. We are aware of this, and yet still cannot see far enough past our base animal instincts to avoid perpetuating this endless cycle of suffering.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-11-01 at 2:31 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai An antinatalist clinging to life is less hypocritical than you imply. Being born is cruel in part specifically because you die (or possibly don't die - you could be immortal, but that's equally or more horrifying). Nobody wants to die. Nobody wants to have to worry about dying. And the only way to avoid existential crises pursuant to mortality? Not being born in the first place. Death is cruel, and death is a part of life. Anything you give life must necessarily die (or not, and that's arguably worse). Life is a catch 22, and 'making babies" is plucking souls from the aether and forcing that catch 22 upon them.
Trash. Horrible. Worst species. We are aware of this, and yet still cannot see far enough past our base animal instincts to avoid perpetuating this endless cycle of suffering.
Maybe every life has the right to choose for themselves whether they will live or not, and the choice isn't up to some third party with no skin in the game. -
2021-11-01 at 2:38 AM UTC
Originally posted by Lanny Poor analogy because there's no necessary relation between the billion dollars and the asshole stabbing.
Better analogy: medical intervention in the case where consent can't be obtained, e.g. delivering CPR to an unconscious person. Yes, there's risk of injury but the risk is _necessary_ for the intervention. Same with kids, it's not some arbitrary desire to inflict suffering on children that's justified by them potentially having a worthwhile life, it's that suffering is a necessary risk that bound up in the possibility of having a good life.
If you want to argue that most net effects of most children is negative then I'll agree with you. But it's disingenuous to completely ignore the potential positive outcomes, both for the given child and society at large, when considering if having kids is justified.
There's a necessary relation - you don't get the billion dollars if you don't get stabbed in the asshole. It is a transaction. The exact same kind of transaction used to justify childbirth - "oh, it'll be bad at times, but the good outweighs the bad so the suffering we're inflicting doesn't actually matter". If it's a bad analogy, it's a bad analogy because childbirth is possibly the only example of an act of cruelty which can be completely sublimed and washed clean from one's slate. Bad things have infinite value in all other transactions. For every other act of cruelty, every other negativity we inflict upon another, there is no amount of good which society accepts as completely absolving one of that cruelty. Steal a stick of gum and donate a billion dollars to charity? You still stole that gum. Create a being so it can suffer immeasurably and also possibly experience all the joys of life? WELL, you see, the joys of life completely justify whatever happens. If even 1% of that child's life is happy, it doesn't matter if you birthed a soul who will get nuggetized and raped for 40 years before having their throat slit.The following users say it would be alright if the author of this post didn't die in a fire! -
2021-11-01 at 2:42 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Maybe every life has the right to choose for themselves whether they will live or not, and the choice isn't up to some third party with no skin in the game.
"Oh, this unmade being that has a clear revealed preference for not being alive on account of the fact that it's not alive yet... well, it deserves to choose if it wants to be alive or not. So lets force it to be alive, and then force it to choose whether or not to die."
Retard. -
2021-11-01 at 2:42 AM UTCThere's lots of people out there who would rather be in pain and suffering and misery than not exist.
-
2021-11-01 at 2:45 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai "Oh, this unmade being that has a clear revealed preference for not being alive on account of the fact that it's not alive yet… well, it deserves to choose if it wants to be alive or not. So lets force it to be alive, and then force it to choose whether or not to die."
Retard.
But it would be alive, had you not interfered. These people who would have existed would have been real, and they mattered. It's like money you could have made, had someone not interfered in the deal. That's real money you could have had in hand. It was the bird in the hand worth two in the bush. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't render it without substance and real effects. -
2021-11-01 at 2:48 AM UTC
Originally posted by Meikai "Oh, this unmade being that has a clear revealed preference for not being alive on account of the fact that it's not alive yet… well, it deserves to choose if it wants to be alive or not. So lets force it to be alive, and then force it to choose whether or not to die."
Retard.
Why not?
You place a lot of much significance on your own survival instinct and desire to avoid suffering, but in reality neither of those things matters to anyone else. So why does it matter to you? -
2021-11-01 at 2:50 AM UTC
Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ But it would be alive, had you not interfered. These people who would have existed would have been real, and they mattered. It's like money you could have made, had someone not interfered in the deal. That's real money you could have had in hand. It was the bird in the hand worth two in the bush. Just because something doesn't exist doesn't render it without substance and real effects.
potential life is abstract which means without substance
