In the previous thread, we covered a lot of ground:
However, a lot of people continue to miss the main point, or misread the argument. I'll try to explain this more clearly - the argument for anti-natalism does NOT depend upon the condition of our reality. Our reality may be nice or shitty at a given point in time. Natalism might empower certain groups within our reality, and anti-natalism might disempower others. That's entirely possible. But it's not relevant. Anti-natalism is concerned with the properties of the system as a whole.
We can surmise that this current system (the one we inhabit) allows for many outcomes which are 'bad' as opposed to 'good.' The actual expressed ratio of good:bad things is not important; what matters is that the POTENTIAL for bad things is embedded into our reality, and cannot be removed. Therefore, it is preferable not to expose new lives to that potential. That's the foundation of anti-natalism.
A lot of people seem to have a very hard time thinking outside of our current system/reality. But that's what actually matters here. Lives not yet in being are outside of this reality, so far as we know. Bringing them into being brings them into this reality. This automatically and unavoidably exposes those lives to the negative possibilities described above. Whether or not those possibilities actually manifest is irrelevant, since the argument is based on the potential itself, rather than specific conditions inside of the system.
>SO WHY DON'T YOU JUST KILL YOURSELF!!!
This is an appallingly bad argument, and if you are still thinking in those terms, you simply don't understand what is being said about abstract potential vs. the circumstances of a given reality.
Not gonna lie, former Trump voter here. This is fucking hilarious watching Trump crash and burn. But in all seriousness we can't let this guy keep the nuclear codes.
Caleb Peterson
God told us to "be fruitful and multiply". There is nothing wrong with humanity, the issue is human corruption and mass human organization (Babel). I've only ever known one anti-natalist IRL, and he was a Jewish business major who told my sister to abort her child. I almost killed the fucker.
Kill yourself, OP.
Ayden Hill
too intelligent for this board, user. if it isn’t bbc or a tranny, they don’t care
In the previous thread, we discussed the role of religion a bit. The 'deus vult' argument for natalism is consistent, but since I don't personally believe that to be the case, I don't find it compelling. More abstractly, the form of that argument is "the current reality as such assigns an inherent positive value to the creation of new lives." If you truly believe that this is the case, then natalism would make sense for you.
As explained before, I am not an evangelist for anti-natalism. I am trying to clarify the actual arguments involved in this debate for others.
James Wood
>This is an appallingly bad argument, and if you are still thinking in those terms, you simply don't understand what is being said about abstract potential vs. the circumstances of a given reality. Not an argument. Able-bodied people can end their life any time they want. Just legalize euthanasia for cripples and done. Anti-natalists are just whiny fags. The reality is simple: many people have livable lives. Nut once life becomes unlivable you can just end it. That's it.
Brainlet midwit low IQ slide thread Fuck off reatrd Go listen to more Sam Harris podcasts you little goofball
Elijah Morales
Absolute kikery. Besides which, even if what you said were true, you would be preaching it in Africa, India and China, not anywhere like here. Europeans are already negative population growth. Take your anti life trash and shove it, your groundless empty pontificating belongs elsewhere, we know what and who you are.
Grayson Brooks
anti-natalists are graypilled milquetoasts. efilism takes runs this ball all the way to the end zone with no special attention to humanity in particular. there is no life at all without cruelty
Nicholas Carter
Not a very good argument, since it relies on contingent conditions ('ability to commit suicide,' for example, might involve a lot of suffering even if successful, might be denied to a person who really wants it, etc.). The argument is that all of these possible bad outcomes exist in our reality. Therefore, it is preferable not to expose new lives to this set of inherent risks.
You are basically arguing that since risks/suffering might be mitigated to some extent, that makes the risks acceptable. I do not believe so.
Nolan Allen
You are referring to the possible effects of anti-natalism within our current reality. As I noted several times before, that's not relevant to the argument for anti-natalism. The argument for anti-natalism arises from the properties of this reality as a whole. Not from any specific/contingent expression of those properties.
Sam Harris is a natalist, and actually had a spergout on a podcast a while ago WITH an anti-natalist.
Brody Rogers
>life sucks >let's not have kids non sequitur, retard
Luis Davis
No; that's not the argument. The argument is that 'life sucks' is an inherent possibility within this reality. Therefore, it is preferable not to expose lives not yet in being to that risk. This preference arises from the existence of the possibility, not from a specific expression manifest into reality.
Jack Moore
Great you identified yourself as a nigger. Any whites reading this, go and have children, pass on the values that matter. There must be good people that make it through the collapse and can inhabit the new world.
Cooper Collins
>Therefore, it is preferable not to expose lives not yet in being to that risk Wrong.
Juan Morales
holy fuck get off your ass you fat fuck and workout. Do something, you can be better than this. You can change youself and be a great person. Just get out there. It will be hard in the beginning but I swear it will be worth it, your mental health will benefit from it.
Hunter Perez
Still voting Trump ling-ling.
Dominic Walker
To assert that this is 'wrong,' you'd need a specific argument for the value/importance of manifesting new life into this existence. I have yet to see one which holds up to scrutiny or is not contingent upon a specific belief in a divine command.
Connor Nguyen
All of that pertains to lives already in being. But that's not the argument being made. Lives already in being can do X or Y or Z; it's not relevant to the question of whether or not to bring NEW lives into being.
Josiah Stewart
Anti-natalism only makes sense if you're not white. If you're white, have as many children as possible, since they'll most likely have good lives.
Michael Brooks
My children will laugh at you as you feebly attempt to to justify you ageing tranny existence. They will tell their children that trannies are freaks and that liberal ideals are worthless.
Elijah Moore
meds nigger. meds.
Jaxson Davis
Look mate just because your life is shit and you suck at everything doesn't mean we do. Just wander off and go die in the corner like the rest of defectives and we'll keep going here.
Noah Anderson
stop skirting around race. you didn't mention it once in your previous thread. the reality is you should be preaching this to africa and asia because those people are more prone to these risks that you're paranoid about and they're less capable of coming up with solutions to them. if you anti-natalist whites out of existence, who's going to even repeat or remember a word of what you're writing?
Hudson Reyes
Agreed OP. If life didn't exist we wouldn't have to care about things and have problems. Simple as.
Levi Cox
There's nothing to skirt around. Racial problems are all contained within our current reality. You can add that to the list of inherent flaws which it contains. The question is whether or not to expose new lives to a reality which contains the inherent potential for such flaws.
Adam White
If you have good genes. You should have lots of children.
Zachary Brown
I'm anti-natalist but for inevitable immoral NAP violation reasons instead. It's not about potential, the immorality is guaranteed.
Incredibly based, but if I may be so bold as to advise you in case of a future encounter with the Chosen people. What is better, to harm him and go to jail or to convince some retarded nigger that said Kike carries a pouch of Gold coins on his person and let the nigger rob him in the street or even invade his home? >People get trauma from break-ins let alone armed robbery at 10pm walking to their car Use their own creations against them.
Evan Ramirez
ok, well, africans and asians are exposing many, many new lives every day to our reality. the oongoboongo tribe leader in nigeria is probably busy impregnating his 30th wife as we speak while we export food to his country and preach about the virtue of anti-natalism amongst ourselves. so go find nigerian Any Forums and preach there. you DO think they're capable of understanding what you're saying, don't you?
Jonathan Sanchez
your argument isn't good, but I respect your gusto. I have had the worlds problems solved for over a decade now and come to the logical conclusion of everything. life is worth it, despite the "risk" for the upsides and to fulfill the natural progression of sentience.
Justin Cooper
We can surmise that this current system (the one we inhabit) allows for many outcomes which are 'good' as opposed to 'bad'. The actual expressed ratio of good:bad things is not important; what matters is that the POTENTIAL for good things is embedded into our reality, and cannot be removed. Therefore, it is preferable to expose new lives to that potential. That's the foundation of natalism. A lot of people seem to have a very hard time thinking outside of our current system/reality. But that's what actually matters here. Lives not yet in being are outside of this reality, so far as we know. Bringing them into being brings them into this reality. This automatically and unavoidably exposes those lives to the positive possibilities described above. Whether or not those possibilities actually manifest is irrelevant, since the argument is based on the potential itself, rather than specific conditions inside of the system. >checkmate, faggot You need to demonstrate that the potential for negative outcomes is greater than the potential for good outcomes. Regardless, whether we count a certain state-of-affairs as being positive or negative (meaning the sum of experiences in the life of any given individual) is somewhat subjective, so that's pretty much impossible to do. >tl;dr life is what you make of it. Have kids, or don't. Not my problem. Also, kys OP
