What's the point of being accepted into life, and being rejected by everything in life?

They have to kill all the pronatalists first
>be antinatalist
>reproduce to raise more antinatalists to counter the oppressive pronatalism in normie society

because you dont have to follow a moral system that says being a virgin loser is bad

get it now?

>Pain and suffering is not inherently bad
Is pleasure and joy by any chance inherently bad?
If pain and suffering is not inherently bad, then why don't people burn money instead of working for them, Why don't they eat poison mushrooms instead of hamburgers? Why do they drink water instead of walking in a midday desert? Why do live in apartments instead of lying naked on the pavement? Why do they play vidya instead of begging other people to whip them?
What about being chronically ill epileptic virgin loser with no friends?
Is chronic pain being bad just what some moral system says?
Is being epileptic just a what some moral system says?
Is being lonely just what some moral system says? Is solitary confinement in prison bad just because some moral system says so?
Imagine worst cases. Physical pain is PRIMARLY what proves that not every pain is subjective (as a result of some asserted moral system).

I am not whining or discussing that people shouldn't be born because there's a chance that they'll suffer. I am discussing why the universe is so illogical as to allow the existence of something which doesn't show any properties of an existing entity. It's like e futile unit of existence. Especially if it exists for a long period, instead of for a short period.

You don't get it do you? Everything "bad" or "good" is entirely reliant on ones moral system, if being a chad with a gf is the most important value within your moral system and and you feel as if life has no meaning otherwise, yeah, you're right, kill yourself. Not everybody follows that moral system though, go become a monk and meditate on life, reject your social norms, or follow them. Its all up to you!

Neglecting my other text?
What if someone has some brain cancer? Is that pain bad only based on the person's moral system?

Its not whether the pain exists or not, but whether it is bad, many a people have suffered for they saw riches in it, unlike many people who see nothing but pain in misery.

>Why don't they eat poison mushrooms instead of hamburgers?
>Why do they drink water instead of walking in a midday desert?
>Why do live in apartments instead of lying naked on the pavement?
>Why do they play vidya instead of begging other people to whip them?
Why do you think half of the authors recommended here are degenerates wallowing in self-pity and none are normie chads?

pic related, almost killed in great purge, witnessed bloodiest siege in history, lived in paranoia for rest of his life, most popular 20th century composer today

Attached: AYZwqetO_400x400.jpg (288x288, 24K)

No one in this thread understands the formula posited by David Benatar in the OP. The moral relativism argument seen here is completely missing the point. It's not about things that some might call objectively bad, like pain. Just replace the words pain and pleasure in the OP with the words bad and good. What causes those states is irrelevant as it differs from person to person, as you've said. What's important is that, besides Buddhas, there are no human beings on the planet that don't prefer one state of being to another. Even in a hypothetical scenario where all human beings born live maximally good at that point it's morally neutral to have children, it's still not morally righteous.

As for the "just kill yourself" argument, there is a distinct difference between never existing and terminating an existence that has already begun. Failing to understand that distinction means failing to understand antinatalism at all.

>Is pleasure and joy by any chance inherently bad?

No pleasure and joy just as pain and suffering are not inherently Good or Bad.

>If pain and suffering is not inherently bad, then why don't people burn money instead of working for them, Why don't they eat poison mushrooms instead of hamburgers? Why do they drink water instead of walking in a midday desert? Why do live in apartments instead of lying naked on the pavement? Why do they play vidya instead of begging other people to whip them?

Because they all feel nice, tell me why don't you fuck a child if you were attracted to him and you could get away with it? By your logic that would be Good because you receive pleasure from it.

My point was simply that without pain and suffering there is no improvement, life would not exist without it. As well as say the beauty within sadness and suffering in which man has long acknowledged and glorified take for example the Greek tragedy's. I am not saying the pain or suffering may not be bad but to suggest a universal morality attached to a certain sensuality is idiotic.

t. Keats

That diagram is intellectually dishonest. The absence of pain isn't good, it's simply not bad.

It is a good thing. The scenario Benatar usually presents is: People would generally agree it's a good thing that there is no suffering on Mars, that no martians are waging wars and dying of painful diseases. However most people would not grieve over the fact that there are no martians to experience happiness and joy, the same way they don't grieve over the fact that all the unpopulated places in the universe lack beings that could feel joy.

So whether or not people grieve is how we tell if something is bad or not? How do we tell if something is good?

Let me present you with a hypothetical for you to answer.

Say there could potentially be a race of beings on the moon that experience unending, painful suffering for their entire lives. But it turns out that, though these things could exist, they do not. Is it a good thing that these beings do not exist?

Now lets also assume there could potentially be a race of beings on the moon that experience unending, blissful pleasure for their entire lives. But it turns out that, though these things could exist, they also do not exist. Is it a bad thing that these beings do not exist?

>An antinatalist thread on Yea Forums

Attached: breedercopes.png (960x845, 410K)

25 replies, my OP question is still not answered.

>People would generally agree it's a good thing that there is no suffering on Mars
Most people would agree that it would be good for you to stop beating your kids. However this is most likely a nonsensical hypothetical because odds are you don't have kids. They mean it would be good in general for someone who beats their kids to stop doing so.
You could also ask, "Is it sad that the people of Mars never experience pleasure?" and they they might well agree because of how the question is phrased.
I suspect if you asked if the people of Mars or Earth are better off most would say Earth.

bitch-ass niggas who don't appreciate the value of suffering ain't worth the shit they spew from their bitch-ass mouths

Let me rape you and we'll see how you much you'll appreciate that.

But if he lets you it ain't rape.

nice strawman busta

Imma straw this hat inside you,faggot.

HEY FUCK YOU NIGGA THAT AIN'T COOL

The one thing that's always cool is the state of nonexistence.

Attached: cool.png (670x690, 671K)

Just go to a warzone lamo

Imagine being so spooked that you are opposed to life itself. Damn it feels good to be an egoist

>Others brought them into this world, others should kill them. Why fix someone else's mistake?
Why don't they convince someone to kill them? Why are antinatalist such cowards?

it's simple just stop being a whiny pussy

peace

All are valid arguments.

Maybe for a brain dead breeder.