Just a friendly reminder that if you procreate you can't claim to be a moral individual

Because I've never seen an argument in favour of it that doesn't boil down to, "suffering bad", which I find wholly inadequate as a basis for morality.

Suffering is bad and every ethical system is based around reducing suffering. Even Christianity is based upon avoiding Hell, which is eternal suffering.

>Suffering is bad
Not all suffering.
>Every ethical system is based around reducing suffering.
Wrong: Kantianism, Contractarianism, Social darwinism.

Answering someone with Bible verse? Cringe beyond belief.

>using bible quotes as an argument

Attached: jfl.jpg (500x653, 81K)

Deut. 33:29 “Blessed are you, O Israel; Who is like you, a people saved by the Lord, Who is the shield of your help And the sword of your majesty! So your enemies will cringe before you, And you will tread upon their high places.”

That's Americunts for you. In the civilised world that's the equivalent of just slavering down your shirt when asked to refute a point.

I said inadequate, not wrong.

Is it antinatalism if i dont have children but dont really care if others do?

>Social darwinism
Decreases suffering of the more highly evolved and of future humans by removing maladaptions and other inferiorities from society and the gene pool
>Contractarianism
Induces people to behave ethically because it is in their best interest, in other words because it will reduce their suffering
>Kantiasm
Reduces the mental suffering of being born with autism

I got you with kantianism. Check mate

I'm mostly an advocate of antinatalism because I wish I wasn't born myself. The "suffering is bad" is sort of an afterthought, in fact I'm simply opposed to ugly and stupid people breeding.
No, it's not antinatalism, because you're not imposing your will onto others.

I am happy snd enjoy life, and i know adding children to it would completely ruin it, like it has ruined every single person i know who has them

>Godless degenerate has children
>Alas, it takes away from their hedonistic, narcissistic "lifestyle"
>Having children ruined me :(

Based

Attached: 6NNNx.jpg (1280x1280, 266K)

Im a pantheist actually, but dont let that keep you from judging people

Hopefully you re a non white degenerate...

Attached: Screenshot_20190126-203627_Google.jpg (1066x1570, 833K)

>Spiritual but not religious degenerate his children
>Alas, it takes away from their hedonistic, narcissistic "lifestyle"
>Having children ruined me :(
There, I fixed it for you

an ego fellow I see

Consent is a meaningless term, no sane man shall belive in.

look I live in Europe, it's fucked up here.
You cant have a traditional family.
And I won't go to states because I like public hospitals and schools.

Antinatalism is strictly a meme among 115+ IQ White people. Funny how that works out.

Attached: 1544447197953.jpg (400x400, 19K)

Much better

Implying the rest of Europe is a fucked up as your Eastern European shithole.

These woke Romanians truly are the worst humankind has to offer. They fail to comprehend that the rest of the world isn t made up of retarded breed of mujiks they are used to debating.

Truly the epiphany of the Dunning Kruger effect.

I live in Catalonia

He is just throwing shit to the ceiling to see what sticks, like a true breeder

kek

>I'm mostly an advocate of antinatalism because I wish I wasn't born myself.
thank you, i now know why antinatalistist exist and why i should spit in their face every time they make the antinatalist argument

Well, i now support your choice and sincerely hope more that Spain and his inhabitants would disappear soon.

The country has been an absolute failure for the past 300 years.

Most of antinatalists are retarded 40yo teens holding on their cool and edgy misanthropism.

The main reason I'm Independent it's because of this. Most of Spaniards are fucking retarded.
Don't want to associate with them.
The main reason some "Catalans" don't want to be independent is that the migrants (From Spain, LA or Africa).

Spain is the fucking circus of Europe, don't want to be associated with that.

Imagine if tomorrow nobody wakes up. All people peacefully pass in their sleep. Nature carries on.
Why would that be bad? Is there a single argument against this being a fairly idyllic scenario?

Ethics is about promotion of flourishing, not reduction of suffering. Flourishing often requires delayed gratitude and endurance of temporary suffering to yield higher reward.

In a certain way this conversation is a microcosm of this idea. It requires endurance of suffering to engage with someone as painfully stupid as an anti-natalist, but the engagement is necessary to provide support for those listening who cannot think the process through fully themselves. The anti-natalist themselves are self-correcting problems however it is in the interest of promotion of flourishing that enduring the suffering of engaging with your bad faith arguments becomes worthwhile. The surviving people are better off in a flourishing sense for the argument having taken place for two reasons. The first of which is that the anti-natalist has effectively removed a proportion of their unfit genes from the population in the next generation via not reproducing. Secondly those who are capable of survival and having replicated their genetic information are better adapted to survive against anti-natalism, which is effectively just another of the infinite challenges to flourishing that material existence can provide.

Basically, if you're an anti-natalist, it's probably a good thing you aren't having children. Anyone dumb enough to fall for your death cult is either not worth saving, or simply unfortunate enough that they have been removed from the reproductive line via one of the infinite random challenges to survival that material existence provides. Your moral framework having bounds that are a removed from the paradigm of promotion of flourishing via survival and pursuit of virtue demonstrates flaws in your capacity as a biological creature, not anything profound about the material universe you exist within.

Becuase I don't want to.

Well there is definetly something about Catholicism and hot climates that turns people into subhumans

You wouldn't know about it. You'd go to sleep and remain in tranquility.

And? I have things to do tomorrow.

Anti-natalism is fundamentally a non-functional and non-serious ethical framework. You have effectively established parameters in which the non-existence of sentience is required in order for morality to be fulfilled to it's fullest extent. Ethics as a field of thought fundamentally is about promotion of flourishing among sentient creatures, not about reducing their suffering, and any ethical framework centered around reduction of suffering is one that is fundamentally incoherent and unable to address even the most basic of scrutiny.

>Ethics is about promotion of flourishing, not reduction of suffering. Flourishing often requires delayed gratitude and endurance of temporary suffering to yield higher reward.
In other words you suffer a little now so you can suffer much less later.

Nature is made up construct.

Also nihilistic retard cares more about

>muh ape and dog that he cares about people and civilization.... soo edgy

forgets about
>nuclear reactors, and heavy industries that require human intervention

>Ethics as a field of thought fundamentally is about promotion of flourishing among sentient creatures
>promotion of flourishing
What the fuck does it even mean? Boy, making vague, meaningless shit up sure sounds intellectual and fun
>Ethics as a field of thought fundamentally is about depreciation of incongruity among sentient creatures
And thus, but mashing two somewhat meaningful terms together, I'd built a system which can either praise and denounce whatever I want! Fuck logic!

I can claim whatever I please, faggot. What are you going to do about it?

This is even worse actually

what if I'm not a slave?

Antinatalist faggots need to stop acting as if Antinatalism is the end goal of morality. Morality is inherently a practical matter. Without humans to act morally, there's no "morals". You're basically saying the end goal of morality is to destroy morality you retard.

I'm only an antinatialists so that I can drop our consumer population size and fuck over my boomer parents' stocks.

It's the duty of the 120IQ plus individual to breed as much as he can. If we don't do it, 70IQ Africans will do and soon conquer the earth, and because of their low IQ, will bring along with it, destruction, famine, and more suffering than ever. If you don't want children starving and more suffering, then eugenics needs to start right NOW and the world's IQ should be at least 120 (it's 86IQ right now). And this actually achieves the goal of antinatalism, because smart people tend to be antinatalists by nature (it's the philosophy of the learned man), so in the end we'll achieve our goal.

Why are rationalists so desperate to come up with some snug definition of ethics or morality based on a single principle taken to its extreme? None of these people actually believe in these post-hoc rationalisms or base their morals on it. Both Michael Oakeshott and CS Lewis called this out decades ago

i’m convinced any time people talk about morality, they haven’t read kant
i’m convinced no one has read kant

A learned man would know that IQ is a meme and lie perpetrated by stupid "high iq" white people.

I have read Kant, but the problem is that his morality postulates the existence of god and free will, two things I don't believe in. Also
>spooks

you have to go back

>I'm a loser

ok nice to know, your shitty belief only works if you assume that most people have more sadness than hpapiness

Maybe Kant should've tried making his garbage readable. I managed 50 pages of the first critique before realising that life's too short to waste it on unedited autism

I think Kant actually edited it, I fear reading the unedited version.

The reduction of suffering is not an interchangeable concept with the promotion of flourishing and life. They are not linear and opposite mathematical constructs that can be added together but independent concepts. You can reduce someone's suffering without necessarily bettering their life in any real functional sense. You can better someone's life while increasing their burdens. Life is not some autistic numbers game in which you assign suffering points to different experiences and integrate them into a subspace of existence. While it is fine that you find fulfillment in shouting into a void that life is purposeless, it is your dysfunctional detachment of the concept of purpose from the promotion and affirmation of life that has brought you to this conclusion. You have purposefully defined a conceptual space outside of the bounds of what ethics and morality can coherently address and then are suggesting it is the fault of morality as a system that your definition is outside if it's bounds. It is your error as an imperfect and incomplete being for not understanding that ethics/morality is centrally about the promotion and affirmation of life, not some core issue with the idea of ethics itself.

Your ego and sentience is significantly more fallible than the infinite Stochastic process you exist within, and it will continue without you on its own terms. You can kick and scream like a spoiled child that people will not follow in your death cult which fundamentally requires the heat death of the universe to principally fulfill, or you can accept that morality is fundamentally about the promotion of life/flourishing and that while reduction of suffering does often accompany that, it is not necessary for it to be so because they are independent concepts.

>admitting you’re a brainlet

Someday all will be swallowed up by the void, spooks like the soul, all of Shakespeare, all, eventually. The only point to life is to live, put death off for as long as possible.
Death is meaningless.
The fungus in your brain is quite lamentable, but I dump you outside the nest.

All nations are failures.

Attached: cordyceps1.jpg (300x218, 20K)

Reading part 3 and 4 of Spinoza's Ethics should be enough to know that morality is a spook.

I apologize, maybe I should have been a bit more clear, I had forgotten that I was speaking to a toddler in the middle of a 20+ year temper tantrum. Ethics and morality is fundamentally only consistent and functional if it is centered around the promotion of and affirmation of life. Centering it around a fundamentally negative conception like the reduction of suffering is non-functional and requires a situation in which you as a sentient being are in no way capable of bringing about in order to fulfill it. Essentially you are painting yourself into a corner and then suggesting it is the room's fault that you have done so and that morality can only function if the room ceases to exist at all.

Intelligence isn't needed in large quantities. Major scientific, technological, and cultural breakthroughs were achieved by a few exceptional individuals. Same individuals, if they so desired, could press a couple of red buttons and end it all. A perfect society doesn't need to be "at least 120 IQ", for higher intellect creates a man who demands a lot and asks too many questions, perfect society should consists of 99% subhumans in 60-70 IQ range, capable of learning how to perform manual tasks and obey their masters - the 1% of 200IQ+ purebred hypergeniuses

>ethics and morality are fundamentally pozzed
No

>And it is of no consequence that the moral ideology which inspires him today (and which, if he is a politician, he preaches] is, in fact, the desiccated relic of what was once the unselfconscious moral tradition of an aristocracy who, ignorant of ideals, had acquired a habit of behaviour in relation to one another and had handed it on in a true moral education. For the Rationalist, all that matters is that he has at last separated the ore of the ideal from the dress of the habit of behaviour; and, for us, the deplorable consequences of his success.
M Oakeshott

Sometimes I think eugenics isn't such a bad idea at it's core, just that I don't think people are capable of doing it properly.
>Schizophrenia and several cancers run in family
>Have a learning disability and multiple painful GI conditions
>"Oh user we want grandkids"
Why are boomers like this? My mother almost died of multiple horrific cancers and there would be a high risk of my child developing leukemia. I'm not risking inflicting that on a little child, and I am simply not fit to be a good parent. I think some healthy, intelligent people are and they should have children, but it's definitely not for everybody.
>The world's iq is 86
The nature of the scale itself is to put 100 as the average

I think the nature of the scale is such that developed nation's average is 100.

However, given the huge number of nations under 100 and the small number above, I think a global average of 85 sounds about right

My life is pretty good is a very good objection.

Antinatalists are typically childish romanticists angry that the world doesn't match their unbridled, ridiculous expectations. They conflate reducing suffering with increasing comfort because they cannot see anything if it isn't hamfisted into a grossly over-simplified false dichotomy. The same way most people suffer, the antinatalist views the world in terms of what they think it should be liked instead of accepting it for what it is, and they then transform that into suffering. There's absolutely no moral argument to be made about any of it - it's nothing but people demanding that you recognize their childish, self-centered perspective as universal fact, and calling you amoral if you don't.

inb4 breed, I don't have kids, and my wife and I plan to adopt

The United States has tons of public hospitals and schools, you just have to pay your fair share if you have money. If you're poor, it's handled.

Once again no anti-natalist can answer why we should value suffering, or why we should consider it when deciding our morals. They take it for granted every time.

Sterilising the population and expecting most people to never have children sounds like suffering to me

Well there is a moral argument to be made. If people suffer then why are you producing them. The problem though, is that the burden of proof is on the AN to answer why suffering is worth valuing for the entire population.

I think antinatalism would be more persuasive if it dovetailed with eco-philosophy. Not having children remains one of the best pro-ecological behaviours, along with not eating meat, and not owning a car.

I agree. It would be better if humans were primarily rational, but they’re not.

Am I an antinatalist if I believe that breeding is not inherently good, just because you are willing someone into existance and there is no possible way to get a consensus or revoke the decision (without causing harm)?

>If people suffer
This is where the entire argument falls apart. You have to prove two things to, which you can't. They are
1) The suffering even exists
2) If it does exist, its to such an extent that it overrides all the positive value of experiencing life
And since antinatalists cannot answer those two things without saying something like, "B-but just look at the world!", they get ignored. There is no moral argument or imperative. It's nothing but privileged people who are angry that their level of privilege isn't as high as they expected it to be, and transforming that into suffering.

Anti-natalist means you think it's bad.

If you bother to examine history and the world at large, the people complaining about not having had a say in being born are - almost without exception - entitled, privileged relative-elites who are upset that the lot in life they felt was promised to them didn't happen.
Breeding isn't inherently good or bad. It simply is. Life is what you make of it, but you'll never convince a bunch of dualist idiots trying to invent the wheel to believe something we've known as functional fact for almost all of human history.

If people suffer why don't you euthanise them?

>If it does exist, its to such an extent that it overrides all the positive value of experiencing life
You also have to answer why you should value positive experiences, and why they're comparable. It's a non sequitur otherwise, and posturing.

I wish someone would want to procreate with me.

>preventative medicine is better than curative medicine

Because people don't want to die? Are you stupid?

Most people don't want to never reproduce you fucking idiot

There should never be forceful sterilization, but instead, incentives to the low IQ and poor to not breed. Make it even more expensive and costly to have children for the poor, and they won't even want it. Make effective birth control, in particular, we absolutely need male birth control, and most of the problem gets solved in 100-200 years, maybe even less if gene editing speeds up the process.

This is so dumb. How do you even argue with this stupidity? Why would you want to do any of this? Why don't you just become genocidal or something? You'd be both more human and humane that way

IQ is arbitrary in many situations and serves no utility. You could choose any trait and the argument would be just as valid.

>This is so dumb. How do you even argue with this stupidity? Why would you want to do any of this?
Intelligence, criminal behavior (which's also linked to iq) and most of major traits we want in humanity are proven to hereditary. There's no way to save these people. No enviromental interventions can raise their intelligence, and the world is increasingly becoming even more demanding of intelligence, with 100IQ people being probably displaced in the next 50 years or so by AI. They are going to starve to death and bring 10 more children to also starve to death and suffer. They need to be stopped.
>Why don't you just become genocidal or something? You'd be both more human and humane that way
Because i'm not a psycopath and i don't want these people to be killed or their race to be erased. Simply that the bad traits should be wiped out with little to no suffering. Again, you could go back and see how England carried out a kind of genocide against criminals and its criminality dropped pretty much forever (they did it in the old way).

Simply wrong. This kind of "argument" is tired and if you read the literature not a single "enviromentalist" if you can call them that actually believes this. There's no point in showing you the wealth of data proving how IQ matters and it's even one of the most important predictors for economic success. Just go and read Flynn and see how he nevers dismisses IQ and intelligence data as being useless, he just don't think the hereditarian hypothesis is true.

I don't give a fuck if people keep breeding, I just want to delete myself.

The reason IQ is going down is because westerners are too "intelligent" to reproduce. It's retarded of you to cry about crime while trying to stop people from reproducing, as if being free of crime on average is better than being able to reproduce.
>i'm not a psychopath
Unlike anyone who takes your ideas seriously

I was questioning the soundness of your argument though.

The main reason IQ is going down is because low IQ people are breeding more than high IQ. That's it. Westerners aren't reproducing because of a combination of culture and economics. It's more expensive to have children and the culture is about having "fun" in life and not settling down to take care of "stupid children". We can change this without importing hordes of low IQ who won't be able to integrate in the economy because of their low intelligence and will be a burden on the economy who in decades will simply not be able to sustain them.
>as if being free of crime on average is better than being able to reproduce.
It absolutely is, or do you think drug dealers are living a happy life? You haven't interacted with poor people. They aren't happy. They aren't living virtuous lives. They live hard lives who mean nothing in the end, and they got cheated by mother nature. They can't help themselves and it's the job of the high IQs to help in this situation.
>Unlike anyone who takes your ideas seriously
Eugenics back then didn't have genetics and history to help us with laying down the ethics to do it. More and more people are getting to know about hereditarianism. See for example, Steven Pinker. He may be a faggot who isn't taken seriously on Yea Forums (his brand of le science materialism is boring and getting outdated) but make no mistake, among liberal elites he is le flavor of the month. Remember that these are the people who rule over you. They actually read him, and he is pretty much a race realist. He is probably the most famous HBDer who haven't confessed he is an HBDer, and HBD in general is at the overton window.

Holy fuck you managerial types are boring.

Your brand is boring and outdated, at least Pinker has the excuse of age. The world was fine a thousand years ago and the flaws of "modern" states won't be fixed by a new bureau of scientists or field of science.
>everyone should be as high IQ as possible
Dumb
>we should try to totally eliminate crime
Dumb
>poor people aren't happy or virtuous because they're poor
Dumb
You just don't want to contradict liberal ideas.

You haven't justified why your system better. A person could just as easily say kill all males because they commit the most violence and crime, then go on to show statistics. Their argument would be just as convincing.

Not a single argument.
First of all, it's low IQ men who predominantly commit crime and rape. Remove that and the problem is almost over. Even then, there is a portion of crime which's done by normal men. But at least, the situation with men is that they bring other benefits to the table which low IQs simply don't. They literally built the modern world and all the wonders of science and progress are at their shoulders. Everything is male dominated because they have superior cognitive, physical and emotional skills.

>westerners are too "intelligent" to reproduce

Thanks to the empire of reason for that. God is dead, capitalism has taken over earth and in the process it has destroyed ancient cultural order. So, stablishing a family is a burden because the imperative now is to make profit and have fun while you can. Each technological advance is a step forward to the extinction westerners unconsciously desire. Reason and materialism erase the magic and meaning of the world, making it a raw substance to be merely used. On the other hand, non westeners still believe in their myths, they have the vitality that west lacks..

partly, but it also depends on your concept of reason
e.g. reason isn't necessarily sceptical scientific empiricism

>Why would a non-breeder oppose antinatalism? Tell me.

Because I'm not a selfish egotistical faggot. Antinatalism is just another stupid ideology telling people what they should do with their lives instead of challenging their mindset. Soon it will become akin to self-help books and new age.

>sceptical scientific empiricism

Thanks, instead of reason I was referring to this.

Well I mean scepticism and scientific empiricism (arguably just scientific empiricism). There are other things like positivism, analyticism, but they tend to overlap in terms of followers. In a weird sort of a way this anti-tradition is its own tradition.

This but the opposite.
THIS x10000

Friendly reminder that if you're OP you can't claim to be heterosexual.

Nigger, maybe I'll start believing you when your trip code becomes consistent.

But that will never happen because the two of you both like larping as the same insufferable cunt.

Still, it's not sound. I could just as easily derive a conclusion based on my own values.

Hey, if you're mad at your parents for giving birth to you, think about forgiving them. I'm sure they've repented.

I’m both of those, none other. Why is the messenger now so important to “an anonymous board”, all of a sudden? Talk abou a consistency problem

>Truly the epiphany of the Dunning Kruger effect.
??

>every ethical system is based around reducing suffering.
Not even true to begin with at all. Deontology, virtue ethics, etc.

Also that's a retarded argument. So just because many people think it's moral to avoid suffering, that means they're right?

Morals are spooks. Why would I ever want to be a moral individual?

Also that's almost word for word Sam Harris' argument for utilitarianism. Kill yourself Harrisfag.

>breeders

YFW you realise that "antinatalists" use the same language as faggots.

If nobody had kids the future AI would never be built, so who is controlling you and me right now?

>epiphany

Attached: 1541199079566m.jpg (1024x683, 67K)

>Paul

Aaaand done.

Attached: campfire.jpg (480x360, 26K)

Question for anti-natalists:
1) what would the world need to be like for you to be a pro-natalist?
2) would you stand a chance of breeding in that world?

I think it's important to note that there's no thinkable reason of why we should exist or continue existing. Given that, bringing people into this world, who probably will realize this sooner or later and who will inevitably die a shitty death in the best case. Any "rational" argument a breeder makes is just because he's being cucked by his evolutionary wiring.

I too remember wishing I was never born because I didn't get the video game I wanted.

I’ll use only use “breeder” in a loving manner.

Antinatalists are ultimately just passive weaklings. Note how they use the word "suffering" rather than the more assertive "struggle."

Why are Jews promoting this shit?

...

Why would I want to be a “moral individual”

Attached: 1550170226076.jpg (1057x842, 306K)

ANYONE who believes in hell cannot justify breeding.

>t. ray piste

Antinatalism is one of the least misanthropic philosophies ever conceived.

Attached: images (11).jpg (384x384, 28K)

Why believe a true thing?

>anglo-saxon """"""""""intellectual terms"""""

Do I also have to ask my dog for consent before I pet him?

And islam is a religion of peace, diversity is our strength, multiculturalism means peace.

>you shouldn't obey the speed limit because a lot of people ignore it.

Attached: 1550803589310.jpg (540x540, 55K)

>Ethics and morality is fundamentally only consistent and functional if it is centered around the promotion of and affirmation of life.

Nice making shit up. Not even an antinatalist but if "pure reason" can be critiqued, so too can the quality and value of life. You know basically nothing about philosophy. Read a fucking book. One that isn't the Bible.

Attached: 1487134407455.jpg (335x268, 25K)

Attached: 1542551559284.gif (746x479, 953K)

>not presenting your hand for him to sniff before petting him

doggy abuse desu

strict antinatalism is truly the brainlet's philosophy.

CS Lewis is a worthless sophist.

And what would be the "high IQ man" philosophy?

>Even Christianity is based upon avoiding Hell
hell isn't in the bible. it was a later addition to scare people into following the church's rules and not defecting to a "better" religion.

Worth more than you, Anonymous.

I m more of a surprise cuddle kind of guy

how is that relevant to antinatalism being completely retarded?

your dog? you've already formed a bond with your dog. he's already become familiar with you and consented. strange dogs? they're going to fuck your shit up if you don't allow them to sniff you and "consent" before you pet them.

I can claim whatever I want to, retard

Attached: cropped-24INN_PålSteigan_mini.jpg (200x200, 12K)

sut up, demographic cuck, your morals are so shit you will go extinct

Antinatalism other word for depression. Btfo forever.

because of the sarcasm :^)

Attached: 1525202431692.png (988x704, 66K)

>heh i was merely pretending to be retarded and you fell for it

you've lost the plot. Go back to your home board.

How the fuck is that not categorically suffering? It may be very minor suffering but its not different in kind to the suffering you would experience if I shoved the pear of anguish up your ass.

Attached: 1550805849602.png (614x614, 31K)

Don't you have to prove the existence of this "positive value". I wouldn't call the satiation of wants and needs a net positive but a positive movement closer to 0.

Attached: Improved_Calculus.png (428x295, 39K)

That's irrelevant. People have a right to decide if they themselves want to die, they don't have a right to decide other people should be forced to live because of mere whim.

Attached: 1496752469380.png (510x346, 190K)

That's retarded
You don't have a right to choose not to be born

What if the dog doesnt want to be petted and just wanted to snif?

Does a sniff means 100% consent ? No.

>entitled

Really, who is more entitled, the antinatalist or the person feeling ENTITLED to children? This is simple stuff. You call good evil and evil good.

I don't need to have the right to choose not to be born because my parent doesn't have the right to choose for me to be born.

Attached: fp,550x550,black,off_white,box20,s,ffffff.jpg (550x446, 42K)

The antinatalist is the one who's more entitled

Wrong. You don't need a right to do something to do it rightly, you only need to not be wrong in doing so. And that's implying the concept of rights isn't wrong in itself.

>willing to become a postmodern nihilist just to win an argument

Why do people always do this? I even ran into this problem when trying to explain why Tic Tac Toe isn't a very compelling game.

What does postmodernism or nihilism have to do with my post?

what do they feel entitled to? Children? Nope. So what?

You certainly can critique the quality and value of life. I'm not saying that life has some universal/objective value, but that ethics is only a coherent concept relative to the promotion of flourishing/life. You can be someone who positively asserts that there is no value to life, but you cannot coherently claim that it is an argument that is ethical in nature. In fact I'd actually agree with the position that there is no objective moral value to life and ethics as a concept is fundamentally only functional when it comes to the promotion of the flourishing of a particular group of sentient beings.

Also, universally preferable behavior is clown shoes.

>And that's implying the concept of rights isn't wrong in itself.

Entitled to decide whether or not anyone else may have children, on the other hand the non-anti-natalist isn't necessarily ENTITLED to children but entitled to the anti-natalist not being entitled to prevent them

Just a friendly reminder that morality is for chumps. Who only does things because they're supposed to do them? Chumps.

>He posted an image of Molyneux (aka the "where's your argument" guy) so I guess he agrees with his philosophy

Attached: 1543057526533.jpg (812x1024, 61K)

So anyone who doubts the idea of rights must be a postmodern nihilist to you? Even though half the people you call postmodernists are probably the same ones crying about endless new lists of fictional rights?

If that's what you got from my post, you literally may be retarded.

So if I advise someone to not rape, pillage and murder, it is because I am feeling entitled to tell them not to do those things?

If that's what you got from MY post YOU may be retarded.

No. It's pretty obvious that you're trying to make the mistake of tying this down to something like action/inaction or positive/negative, that sort of notion, which is wrong.

Maybe they aren't quite there but it always goes this way. Prove rights exist. Prove morality exists. Prove objectivity exists. Prove truth exists. Prove reason exists. etc...

Do you have an actual position worth taking seriously? So far you've demonstrated that you have response images saved onto your cell phone but not that you have anything worthwhile to contribute. The fact that you didn't even understand the first post of mine you responded to was glaringly apparent by you accusing me of being someone who has only read the Bible when I was precisely arguing that objective/universal morality doesn't work because objectivity is outside of the scope in which morality is defined.

I didn't ask you to prove they exist, but you shouldn't take an argument of rights as being ultimately decisive, anymore than one of utility or of deservedness.

Based and Ligotti-pilled

Your response literally had nothing to do with my position. The herd mentality bit you posted has next to nothing to do with the question of whether morality as a concept is capable of addressing questions of objective truth.

I anticipated this was going to be another "if everyone adopted antinatalism, society would start to crumble and suffering would be made worse for those already existing."

I'll just say, I take to be apriori the reduction of harm (not suffering) and you take to be apriori the promotion of flourishing of life. I don't think we'll get anywhere this way.

Fucking worthless utilitarians what is the point of you

>epiphany

Attached: patinkin.jpg (462x313, 22K)

Can we just ban these antinatalism threads? What the hell do they have to do with literature? Go discuss this shit on /his/.

Thay can bring literature about the topic but they prefer to shitpost

Can you demonstrate morality to BE anything other than an evolved behavioral tendency which allowed for better reproductive fitness in group selective environments?

We can argue all we'd like about what we think morality ought to be, but it functionally isn't anything but an evolutionarily influenced means of deciding who is trustworthy and good for the tribe. It is not a rational thing at it's base, but the result of an inconceivable combination of random stochastic events which led to an imperfect but probabilistically sound method of evaluating which people and actions are good for the group.

morality is what ought to be, stop with this
bullshit descriptive nonsense if you ever want to disagree with someone on moral matters

Attached: lIXoJZ9.png (1015x828, 317K)

If you don't think human life is valid you should still attempt to validate it. You're not the first human on the planet and you still have a firm conviction that morality should be over the alternative. Your methods would remove this notion from the world.

Humans are mammals and great apes but our ancestors were not the cause for the demise of the dinosaurs so we are not morally responsible for the crime. We are the way the tree of life copes with the loss.

You can say that morality is about what ought to be, you just have to be willing to accept that under those terms it will not be a consistent and closed logical system and ultimately decided by arbitrary aprioristic assumptions.

If you want to be "objective" about it, you have to examine what morality is epistemologically. Morrality can be demonstrated to be largely heritable in terms of what aprioristic values people tend to demonstrate and can be studied under the terms of evolutionary psychology.