Imagine bringing a child into this world....monthly reminder thread theirs no succesful argument against anti-natalism

with life comes the inevitable, and often irresistible, desire to continue it, yours and that of your line. we feel pleasure in eating, sleeping, exercising, and all that because they are necessary for continuing life. they are a reward system. and innately programmed into us is the desire to seek those rewards, and naturally, to stray away from that which would prevent us from getting them, the greatest hindrance being death. even if we recognize the logical solution of death, we cannot easily attain it, our biology prevents us.

same reason we crave sex, or are rewarded for having it or having children. all cruel rewards for bringing about more suffering.

I wish your parents could have heard these arguments

>Sickness
I live in a country where I can easily access medication. I had the flu maybe one time in my life and I felt bad for like three days then it passed
>Hunger
I live in a country where this is a problem for no one
>Violence
Never felt like it was a problem for me I have a state that protect me against unlawful violence
>Acccidents
Rarely happend especially if you're careful
>Pain
All pain I had was tolerable and none made me think that I wish I didn't exist
>taxes
I'm glad I pay taxes so I can get security, medical treatments, etc.
>Expenses
I'm glad I can freely choose how I spent my money
>poverty
I'm not poor neither will be my children.
Even if they are poor considering my country standards it is more than likely that their life will still be torelable
>inequality
I'm glad inequality exist it mean that there is no straitjacket that has been imposed on us and productive member of society can be rewarded for their utility
>Racism
Never experienced it and it is more than likely that I never will
>Religious hatred
Same as above
>Violence against animals
Same as above
>Destruction of natural environment
We are making progress toward this subect every years and the struggle against it gave a purpose to our modern societies
>Old age
If the term "old" exist it this to differentiate it from others age who composed most of our life.
Even when I will be old nothing indicate that I will found my oldness untorelable
>Infant and child mortality
I live in a first world country and even in africans countries it is drastically decreasing
>Religious Oppression
Never experienced it and it is more than likely that I never will
>Oppressive Religion (The edgelord who made that list was very inspired)
Never experienced it and it is more than likely that I never will
>Child Abuse
If a child is abused there is protection measure that can be taken in most country to prevent it
>Sexual Abuse
Never experienced it and it is more than likely that I never will
>Divorce
I'm glad that if things don't work out with my partern I'm free to break my bond and find somebody else
>Competition for limited ressources
All my life I only knew an abundance of resources simply because I live in a first world country and there is no reason for that to change
>Competition for work
I'm a civil servant
>Umemployment
I'm a civil servant I can't be fired

This meme is tired, but pretty applicable here. Pessimistic philosophies are for 100 IQ midwits

Couldn't you just argue however that, unexpected, painless death would be morally justifiable than?

well first of all i recognize and appreciate that others can feel differently about this matter. so i wouldn't want to damn someone to a fate they don't see the value of.

also, the social fabric of human civilization, which can also be arguably reduced to biological imperatives, prevents the kind of death you speak of from being wholly justifiable, since any death would bring about suffering from those connected to the one killed. the only way it would work is if there were a method to kill everyone at the same time instantly.

do whatever you want, im just tired of you gay retards proselytizing nonstop with your shitty gay views and ideologies, like just shut up already

>racism bad!
yes, please don't reproduce

Attached: (yuu).gif (413x243, 51K)

Imagine being dumb enough to be a materialist

Why is suffering considered something to be eliminated? Why is death a fact so despicable that life itself should be led to nonexistence? Life is a thing so arbitrary in every conceivable fashion that things only matter if you let yourself be bothered. And who are you to dictate the burdens of others?

>Why is suffering considered something to be eliminated?
No one volunteers for suffering for its own sake, so prima facie it's bad/something to be avoided. The usual retorts invoke the "soul-building" second-order goods that follow from having gone through suffering (there can't be bravery without shitty situations in which one can be brave), but a) if those goods were obtainable without the qualia of suffering that's what everyone would opt for b) those goods are irrelevant in the context of procreation since the unborn have no need to experience said goods
>Why is death a fact so despicable that life itself should be led to nonexistence?
>Life is a thing so arbitrary in every conceivable fashion that things only matter if you let yourself be bothered.
To paraphrase Mike Tyson, everyone is a badass ice cold stoic until they get punched in the face.
>And who are you to dictate the burdens of others?
Isn't this something you should ask the breeders? By necessity, by procreating you're dictating suffering and death upon the procreated.

>counterb8ing the antinatalist b8
Bah gawd

Attached: CATERS_EYE_POPPING_TEEN_05-1024x576.jpg (1024x576, 50K)

>No one volunteers for suffering for its own sake
>Implying nobody here pays for that
Ok

Imagine being dumb enough to be anything at all

Masochists usually enjoy a very limited set of what others would call painful experiences, all you have to do is get the chainsaws and blowtorches out and ask if suffering still isn't bad.

Like an imaginer?
>Implying they'll stop coming here if you try to negate that
Why do you think so many of them are still writing poetry? I think you have missed the point of masochism and the sublime and should consult Swinburne on eating humans as an act of love.

I don't follow.

>No one volunteers for suffering for its own sake, so prima facie it's bad/something to be avoided.
You're going to have to elaborate on this one.

>The usual retorts invoke the "soul-building" second-order goods that follow from having gone through suffering (there can't be bravery without shitty situations in which one can be brave), but a) if those goods were obtainable without the qualia of suffering that's what everyone would opt for b) those goods are irrelevant in the context of procreation since the unborn have no need to experience said goods
What are these goods? Excuse me if i'm a bit daft, i haven't had a proper reading on the general idea of anti-natalism.

>To paraphrase Mike Tyson, everyone is a badass ice cold stoic until they get punched in the face.
You're looking at suffering from the human's perspective. Life, as a state of being, exists alongside nonexistence (as opposed to being a sort of "closed ecosystem", existing in a bubble from most relevant things), making it nescessary to define itself outside of itself. Thus, suffering is not an intrinsic vice unless you can systematically define it as such.

So far you have said that within life, specifically within life from the perspective of a consciousness brought on by a mortal body, the optimal way to satiate the body's suffering (imposed upon the consciousness) would be do dispose of the body, as it not only harms itself by existing, but also that which is "you". This is correct, as far as i can deduce from this.

You've failed to consider the perspective of the consciousness however, should "you" choose to concern yourself with matters outside the needs of the body. What if i tell you to simply go fuck yourself? That it is my opinion that i love life and i love death? What if i decide that the state of existance is preferable to nonexistance? How can you decide whether or not a creature will hold a belief like that? Thus death might become the death of an unwilling subject, as he might, in the end, embrace the suffering as a pathway to existence. This is as subjective as the hatred of pain.

>Isn't this something you should ask the breeders? By necessity, by procreating you're dictating suffering and death upon the procreated.
This is a damn good retort. I agree.

Hehehe, good one. These arguments are interestin in that they directly refer to the biological disdain for discomfort. Thus, instead of satiating your hunger, the way to eliminate hunger would be to simply kill yourself. I like this one. Bravo then, i can't say i can argue against that fully with my lacking knowledge, at least for the time being.

>Thus death might become the death of an unwilling subject, as he might, in the end, embrace the suffering as a pathway to existence.
*specifically referring to the preemptive culling of future sufferers

vocaroo.com/i/s1MAB4En4xut

Ay Tone, how come it be you disagree but provide no valid counter-arguments, even such that could be naturally extrapolated from your disagreement?

Oh my bad i got to the "you're fighting against god" part, i didn't realize this was bait, excuse me.

this is a midwit take itself. The propensity for pessimism is probably mostly caused by temperament, not intellect.

Based vocaroo poster, you always make laugh bro, good shit :-)

>t.op

I'm sorry what? Do you actually think there is no genetic component to why you have abandoned the will to live on through your genetic offspring?

temperament is caused directly by intelligence

retards = lol nothing matters bro who even cares lol just have fun
midwits = god....life is so horrible everybody sucks everything is FUCKED! (these people are the worst)
retards pt. deux = PRAISE THE LORD GIVE YOUR LIFE TO CHRIST AVE MARIA ALLAHU AKBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR ALLAH AKBAR ALLAH AKBAR PRAISE JEBUS
above average = science is le ultimate truff. god isnt real we're all space dust
GENIUS/ASCENDED = ???

if life was so bad then old people would all be really depressed people but they are generally pretty cheery

There are obviously intelligent pessimistic and cynical philosophers and writers. Especially if we broaden pessimism to allow people whose opinions are more or less 'this world everyone is aware of is shit but there's a better secret one'.

Its only the case when a family has a constant history of mental issues and or some genuine genetical issue. Otherwise as I said previously, ideas come to people through circumstance not fucking genetics. Its up to the individual and their experiences to dictate how they think and how they'll and act and how they'll strive for truth according-to-their-circumstance. If you think genetics has anything to do with it then your just a brainlet

the unhappy ones all offed themselves or drank to death

Those perceived "negatives" and "positives" are due merely to a material attachment to this world/existence. If you let go of your ego, things can become much more interesting
>wah, I'm not given $1000 a month! Life is terrible! No kids for anyone!

my grandpa stares at a wall all day and barely leaves the house, pisses in a bottle, and watches the same mundane shit on the tv everyday. The elderly are suffering don't get it twisted, they just don't have energy to care for much of anything anylonger, the only reason their cheery is because they hardly ever get attention and on their own they hardly think but rather just live,slowly, waiting for death

what seems crazy is how theres alot of topics in the world where peoples brains somehow turn off, and im not sure whats the cause of this. for example you can bring up a variety of controversial topics, nigger... dude you said a bad word, and their brain turns off, you support the strength it takes to commit suicide, their brain turns off. maybe the best use case of bringing a child in this world is if you were courageous enough to raise him to change the lives of the lost people, the ones who need help or guidance. but you would need to be a remarkable man to create a child who understands life, the same way you do. although this is not the case for 99,999 out of 100,000 people. you could consider it selfish raising a child depending on how much you have done for your moral self

Ill be called edgy for this but it's because the very large majority of people have their views for social reasons. I don't just mean just what they say but what they actually believe. There are views that are clearly high status or low status for a given group of people and the majority will just believe the high status ones because humans fear being socially ostracized more than almost anything else. It is not remotely beneficial to go against these views just to be right about something, especially if you can sort of tiptoe around confronting the issue consciously while acting as though you believed the low status thing.

Even if the person gets over that barrier(very unlikely) then they meet the next barrier which is 'believe things that make you feel good'. Once again this eliminates almost everyone.

>an entire thread and no one has still adequately described why antinatalism is bad/wrong

What gives, Yea Forums? Is it just an uncomfortable truth for everyone?

Attached: D93B4765-72FF-44B4-B477-207A01E454EA.jpg (602x431, 57K)

Define "bad/wrong"

Ekhem.

certainly i can describe it exactly like this if i compared it to war and peace

Reminder that Christcucks, and theism itself, has been BTFO since ancient times

Attached: D31FBCD4-603C-4C9B-9253-D4BD2EBE4B20.png (186x127, 30K)

why don't you kill yourself? i'm sincerely curious

What an awful take.

>Like an imaginer?
boogiepop reference? why is bpw so good?

How old are you, twelve? Posting Epicurus is the atheist equivalent of a christian posting the pascal wager.

Attached: 1529532954175.gif (480x358, 1.14M)

Attached: Fight.jpg (517x654, 67K)

So far none have answered. Why is that? If i'm wrong i'll never know, because of you.

what a terrible list

literally all of those have a positive counterpart lol

I'm sorry but that's just not true. Genetic issues and epigenetic phenomenon occur in one generation when they were not present in the previous generation all the time.

Why anti-natalism is wrong for whomst exactly? It's probably right for you, after all you don't even have the will to survive through the easiest and most bourgeois time period that has ever existed. If all of existence is suffering for you, then ridding your genetic material from the gene pool seems like a solid decision for those who remain and see your position for the childish temper tantrum that it is.

Nihilist garbage. Friendship and love are real and they make u happy. You dont hate life, you hate yourselves or your community. Feeling mirth at how stupid you all are and enjoying life. And im going back to fit you are all pigs that need proverbs and plato and less of your own bullshit.

anti-natalist has a serious way before us and in-fact it was way more prevalent with Zapfe the only new developments targeting it directly is Ligotti. Sorry but if anything anti-natalism was way more prevalent previously and being a core component of the pessimism track its no a surprise a place like Yea Forums would pick it
up. It goes all the way back to scopenhauer and relatively has held the same position always.

>anti-natalism
cringe

without a grounding in attempting to build ones own virtue such things are just covers for internal emptiness. Also Platonic dualism is retarded- Aquinas' blended monism/dualism is more sensible since it realizes the existence and speciality of the soul without falling into the logical issues dualism leads to

if you're an anti-natalist just kill yourself its as simple as that, oh but you wont because your beliefs are solely a tool for pseudointellectual posturing.
>inb4 but suicide takes action and I don't wanna
convincing everybody to not fuck is also taking action

Perhaps one explanatory factor in anti-natalism being less popular now then previously is that the anti-natalists didn't have children who shared their same genetic predispositions to pass those ideas on to?

Cuck: The philosophy

Attached: 1555236725478.png (900x551, 120K)

>blah blah blah cope cope cope
fascinating

Half of those things in the left don't apply to most 1st worlders and is just a minor nuisance for most people in the world.

Here I fixed it for you

Attached: 1543183111944.png (1300x1941, 537K)

>if the only certainties are death and taxes then their analogs of sex and prosperity are also present
Good times. Carry on fren.

Actual racism is bad for your psyche. Read Hitler's distinctions between racism and racialism. The distinctions he makes are the necessary arguments that we have abandoned.

Kill yourself. Not because "if life is so bad just opt out", but because you're a massive faggot and making life worse for the rest of us.

Man is made to suffer.

cope

I'm glad I was born. I didn't exist before, and I wont exist after a while. Maybe you anti-natalists are wrong and there's more to life than suffering. Existence is certainly worth a shot. Heck, not existing was so boring I don't even remember it!

Attached: fuck_your_bad_vibes_bro.jpg (640x436, 32K)

no

rethink this

Reminder that nobody has answered with a retort so far. Can i ever be stopped?

Let me solve that one for You.

Attached: 1556908603723.jpg (1300x1941, 92K)

Mister edgy OP, see

Fucked up my quotes:

Oh no you misunderstood, i meant that nobody, even OP, has so far answered to my counter-argument, that being

Attached: Philosophy.png (862x3832, 3.43M)

Kind of like "The Last Question". I like it.

Attached: 1553749074717.jpg (500x375, 27K)

Birth is a red herring. Relations between personae are the the real abominations.

Sorry about that, my bad. Anyway, I think this picture (which I have posted) shows the problem with antinatalism and similar philosophies.

Death has already been defeated by Jesus so yea.

>Why don't you kill yourself if you think like that?
>Genuine question
Existence is a kind of addiction. Not to mention the suffering inflicted when you try to undertake liquidation as the solution. For yourself you can do damage and have a painful way out and spread suffering to others. In addition there is cowardice involved, even if you don't want to exist choosing not to is still not going to get rid of the icy dread most of us feel when we consider what it means to cease entirely.

The problem with that image is that Donald states a fact, without a real point to it. Mickey, however, appeals to opinion and morals, a point without fact. None are wrong here, because none have justified or even attempted to explain anything from a detached and (hopefully) objective standpoint.
It is a fucking hilarious image though.

anti-natalists shoudl kill themselves. This is a praxis recommendation.

>The problem with that image is that Donald states a fact, without a real point to it.

As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
—Max Planck, Das Wesen der Materie, 1944

Materialism is very questionable.

>Mickey, however, appeals to opinion and morals, a point without fact.

If anyone, Mickey here is stating "facts", the Munchhausen trilemma shows that one ought to be careful with beliefs, especially extreme ones such as antinatalism.

>It is a fucking hilarious image though.

Heck yes.

I suspect anti natalism is a sort of logical end point of a morality not rooted in family and kin, but in abstract ideals. That and depression probably.

It's about the unborn, you immediately assume it's about yourselves, fucking narcissist breeders, no wonder you get a kick out of reproducing.

>pain bad pleasure good
>equality good
>employment good
>competition bad
>racism bad

Attached: you.jpg (408x431, 11K)

There are many weakness to the anti natalist argument.

But if you want a simple counter argument. 99.9% of people are not killing themselves even though it has become extraordinarily easy and painless.

This should indicate that whatever lack of meaning you perceive in life is probably not shared by the rest of the world. And it would most likely not be shared by your possible offspring either. So it would even be a mistake of an anti natalist to not have children, as his children would most likely have another view on life anyhow.

It's amazing how difficult understanding this seems to be for 99% of nu-lit

What if the unborn are in hell and by bringing them here you give them a chance for repentance?

>As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much: There is no matter as such. All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together. We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter.
To this i cannot answer, as i'm not a physicist, however within this quote i see no explanation for his conclusion beyod it being "obvious".

>If anyone, Mickey here is stating "facts", the Munchhausen trilemma shows that one ought to be careful with beliefs, especially extreme ones such as antinatalism.
Excuse my ignorance, i'm new to internet pseudery, but the Munchhausen trilemma can be easily avoided if you change "objective proof of x" to "the most plausible results to result from x on the basis of experience", at first glance at least. If nothing is fact, at the very least you can clearly observe that which will happen (for example, a lightning hits a tree. You are not certain what will happen, but you're pretty damn sure that tree is going to get fucked. And lo and behold; it is set alight. And as such, you would have been correct.), and instead of calling it "certainty", call it "plausibility". Functionally, nothing will have changed, apart from the supposition of certainty. If you're not a brainlet you never were under it's illusion in the first place.

Not OP, but literally only because I don't want to be that much of cunt to my parents. I will keep trying my best until they die and then plan and carry out my suicide.

With a condom

Why would you consider the unborn? They do not exist before they are conceived. Instead you should consider the suffering a would-be person would experience if brought into your life.

Although, the negative value placed unto, and the very concept of "suffering" itself appears to be arbitrary. What do you define as suffering? The chemical reaction carried onto the brain through a nervous system? There are many organisms that live and die without suffering.

Suppose we define suffering as a bodily malady. Thus we can deduce only certain lifeforms should be allowed to procreate as such procreation doesn't imply more suffering, specifically such of creatures that do not experience discomfort or pain as a part of their biological set-up. What if we were to surgically disable all neural pathways that handle discomfort in a creature? And just like that, life is no longer suffering.

What is the inherent value you place upon suffering? Why do you consider suffering to be of greater importance than life itself?

>But if you want a simple counter argument. 99.9% of people are not killing themselves even though it has become extraordinarily easy and painless.
This is, if anything, an agrument for antinatalism. Has 99.9% of people ever been right about anything?

>Beauty
>Relative

Both anti- and natalists are wrong. Former because they treat life as absolute evil, latter because they treat death as absolute evil. There's no real reason to be religiously attached to either.

Attached: 747bbb.jpg (554x693, 79K)

based

Because you can't just assume that the would-be person would be a masochist who'd enjoy the pain. Suffering can be subjective depending on the degree, but it'd be nasty of you to commit that gamble on the behalf of someone else, even if the odds were much slimmer.
Avoiding suffering should be the higher moral priority than seeking pleasure at the cost of someone else's misfortune.

So does Yea Forums double as the philosophy/ideology board?

Attached: ACE6CDA7-4B91-4AB9-9B30-179A9A381C0F.jpg (736x726, 98K)

It's for retard muslim snobs that know big words, yet struggle with basic moral arguments.

anti-natalism in the normal autistic sense about suffering ethics is retarded, however, instead of focusing on all suffering you could simply argue that natalism is inherently oppressive. when people promote natalism, essentially what they are saying is that they are entitled to the suffering of the bottom rung. when you have a human civilization, people are necessarily going to get tortured and so on, so what the natalist says is "yeah I see that kid with flesh eating bacteria who begs for death but... muh sunsets and pussy!"

that is that natalism should be called, S&P. sunsets and pussy. that's what it boils down to: a combination of waffling romanticism about mere existence (sunsets), coupled with evolutionary pressures to reproduce (pussy). the agony of the devoured is always worse than the pleasure of the devourer. S&Pfags are basically just oppressive, selfish, evil weenies; the californian white people of conscious experience who shitpost on twitter while indian sex slaves are beaten to death. if a single person on this earth ever wishes they were never born, the pleasure of the S&Pfags is entirely negated in the mind of anyone who takes compassion to its logical end. but S&Pfags gonna S&P

>bix nood mufugga muh sunsets
>MUH MOTHAFUCKIN SUNSETS (AND PUSSY)

>Because you can't just assume that the would-be person would be a masochist who'd enjoy the pain
Enjoyment of pain is about as arbitrary as pain itself. One does not have to be a masochist to value life more than the suffering it causes. Again, you're thinking of this in terms of subjective values from the perspective of a human. If you treat pain as a vice because as a living being it is an inconvenience, why don't you treat the act of living as a virtue, seeing as how it is, in a way, the "goal" of life? Why do you value one over the other? For that matter, why do you value suffering more than the lack of suffering? Both are temporary and subjective. There is no empirical reason for either to be of higher importance.

>Suffering can be subjective depending on the degree
Suffering is not subjective, it is an observable phonomenon, however the matter is that what you think of suffering is absolutely subjective. I don't think there is a single argument against suffering and against life because of suffering that can be made without starting the sentence with "I think..."

>...but it'd be nasty of you to commit that gamble on the behalf of someone else, even if the odds were much slimmer. Avoiding suffering should be the higher moral priority than seeking pleasure at the cost of someone else's misfortune.
Nigga fuck y'all morals :^)

To me this seems like circular reasoning. Pain is undesirable because it is pain, which is undesirable.

it's a joke board like [s4s] but a handful of autists didn't get the message so they keep posting spastic screeds about who know what lol

Why should i care about some faggot dying when i can have sunsets and pussy?

>To me this seems like circular reasoning. Pain is undesirable because it is pain, which is undesirable.

So there's no argument against torture?

>Enjoyment of pain is about as arbitrary as pain itself.

Physical pain is objective, suffering is objective. If you want the argument removed the human perspective then observe the wildlife. It's how you choose to react to pain and suffering that makes you a masochist.

>why should i have compassion

dunno, it's not really logical but I'd rather be with than without. at the very least perhaps compassionate people are better able to appreciate art and overall have superior aesthetic experiences? a suspicion, I got no proofs

>implying and believing racism exists

>So there's no argument against torture?
No. No argument beyond "I don't like this and therefore this shouldn't happen". Which i would consider to be a valid argument.

>Physical pain is objective, suffering is objective
As is aid, this is true. But what you consider them to be is completely arbitrary. Right or wrong. Cosmically desirable or not. Makes no difference if your best argument is an opinion.

>If you want the argument removed the human perspective then observe the wildlife. It's how you choose to react to pain and suffering that makes you a masochist.
You cannot remove the human component from this argument as it is wholly reliant on the will to procreate. Not the compulsion, which animals experience, but the choice and will to consciously bring a creature into this world.

>It's how you choose to react to pain and suffering that makes you a masochist.
Are you using "masochism" as a slur for people who don't dislike suffering or are you referring to the actual condition of masochism? The difference is monumental. For most there is no "choice" in the matter of pain. It always hurts like a bitch, no matter what.

>dunno, it's not really logical but I'd rather be with than without.
Exactly. I would rather be with life than without.

>As is aid
*As i said

People shut off their brains when what you tell them speaks of a reality that they cannot accept, this works on a variety of layers. On the biological level individual members of a species are compelled to survival.On a psychological level its a self-defense mechanism. On the societal level the system needs lots of hands to do hard work for it. I'm not against having kids if their parents are responsible but I don't believe that is usually the case. Also I cannot help but laugh at breeders calling anti-natalists NPCs, the irony is exquisite.

Attached: Jazz_For_Your_SouL.jpg (459x600, 40K)

EVERYONE stop replying IMMEDIATELY until you understand what this means.

So i suppose in summary:
Don't try to justify your opinions as facts. We can debate the vices and virtues of all approaches to life, but for me calling some morally superior to others is a big no-no. I'm not saying you should have a "fuck you i'm right" attitude, i'm not saying you shouldn't believe in anti-natalism because it's "logically fallacious", i'm saying that if you're going to try changing somebody's mind, don't do that with claims of objective right. Not in this context at least. Me wanting to perpetuate life perpetuates suffering. That much is obvious. I understand the suffering caused by this idea. I also understand that without furthering life, we would not have art, the sciences, the ability to traverse space, music, literature, and the list goes on and on. My subjective justification is that it would be a terrible shame to deny future man the potential to see what comes next. And besides, even if earth were to be eradicated of life, eventually, somewhere, life will begin anew (As in, i find it hard to believe humans on planet earth are the first creatures to ever exist, and even if we are the only ones at this time, we still don't know if the universe as it was before it's metamorphosis into what it now is was capable of sustaining life). We are not eliminating anything, merely lessening the "universal total" of a sensation that is essentially infinite.

Care to explain what is meant by "personae" within this context?

In part what you are referring to is called a "thought-stopping technique" in pop psychology. Fascinating stuff. Conversely, i have heard intelligence described, in part, as a willingness to both question and believe in everything and anything.

*i find it hard to believe creatures on planet earth are the first creatures to ever exist

*first and last
Apologies for excessive self-revisionism

>Not the compulsion, which animals experience, but the choice and will to consciously bring a creature into this world.

lmao, you're still conforming to the will of the DNA-jew while claiming you're not just dancing in its palm. Thinking you are in any more control of your passions and desires than the other species is the most cliche npc thing to seriously believe in. WAKE UP PUPPETS

Why don't you just kill yourself xD

>Exactly. I would rather be with life than without.

well of course, the point is that you're selfish and evil, but obviously most people don't care about that which is why anti-natalism is such an edgy position. however, I will say that once you take the anti-natalism pill the world makes a little more sense, and you start thinking maybe the world isn't so unjust (it is, but not in the way you thought) and that all the people suffering are just S&Pfags of their own unmaking. so in practice this turns into pro-abortion, anti-commie, etc.

>sickness
doesn't happen if you don't have retard genetics

>hunger
doesn't happen if you aren't poor

>violence/physical harm
doesn't happen if you aren't poor and/or come from retard genetics

>accidents
worth the risk

>taxes
yeah thats gay

>expenses/financial strain
if you're concerned about taxes then you probably make enough for this to not be an issue. pick a side retard

>poverty
check my two responses above. just dont be poor

>inequality
not real

>racism
not real

>religious hatred
not real

>violence against animals
only coherent reason on this list desu

>destruction of natural environment
not real

>old age
not an argument

>infant and child mortality
shit happens

>religious oppression
dont follow a retarded religion

>oppressive religions
not real

>child abuse
yea thats gay

>sexual abuse
not real

>divorce and faulty relationships
grow a sack

>competition for limited resources
yeah you have to COMPETE or DIE. sounds like the latter is better for your weak mind

>competition for work
yes? stop being weak

>unemployment
not an argument. go live in the mountains

Fair point, so let me rephrase myself:
The matter is not of the compulsion, which animals experience, but the choice and will to consciously refrain from bringing a creature into this world.

Of course i am not in control of my passions and desires. I am in control of whether or not i execute them.

I am not selfish, nor evil. Justify why creating, among other things, pain, is inherently evil.
Again you demonstrate the scope of your argument to be the "here and now" instead of the very concept of life and pain.

>Not enough of a man to be able to sustain a family emotionally and financially
>Having children is not ethical!!!

The quote is supposed to show that it is difficult, not obvious, to come to radical conclusions such as antinatalism.

I referenced the trilemma for a similar reason; according to the trilemma, with its extreme skepticism, we shouldn't even try to come to any conclusion. Our whole pursuit of knowledge lies in justifying our beliefs as well as we can. When it comes to antinatalism, what goes in it's favour is all the suffering, and pain, which is there for real. What goes against it is that some people claim there's meaning to life and that living is worth it.

In my opinion, not having children is better than having them if you're going to fuck up their life, directly or indirectly, that is by being a shitty parent or living in horrible conditions, respectively. Thinking that having kids is good for its own sake is ridiculous.

Having children today is, in general, a personal choice (technically it has been for a while), which comes down to "I'm going to have a child because I want to (or someone else wants me to)". No one is obliged to have children.

If one has the capacity to raise a child, has the wealth and conditions to raise and educate them well, it is reasonable to have a child. Selfish, but reasonable.

Even an antinatalist could have a child, if they had a utilitarian point of view, and had a child for the greater good. "Child, you're going to be a much better antinatalist than myself. Spread the word, liberate the people, like I never could." Or the antinatalist could spread the word himself, I don't know.

but nihilism is bad - you have to make meaning. you have to take up some heavy load - lift it high over your head, pelvis tilted slightly forward - an anterior pelvic tilt just won't do - really make full use of the entire posterior chain - then once you've grown fully erect with that load lifted high over your head, preferably as you stand atop a hill with the sun rising behind you, grin like pic related and then close your eyes and tilt your face up toward the heavens and shout GAZE UPON MINE FEAT OF STRENGTH AND BEHOLD THE RESULTANT FRUITS OF MINE RE-ASCENT FROM MINE OWN DOWN-GOING! THERE IS MEANING YET IF THOU WOULDST JUST RAISE UP SOME STONE - SOME BURDEN; AND STACK IT HIGH, AND PILE ON SHALL THOSE OTHERS WHO HAVE RISEN OUT OF THE DEPTHS OF THEIR OWN DOWN-GOINGS, AND SO SHALL THE MOUNTAIN GROW! only then can the unbearable suffering of life be tolerated - by lifting a damn heavy load, bongo.

Attached: 7826178123.png (1000x1000, 1.22M)

>I referenced the trilemma for a similar reason; according to the trilemma, with its extreme skepticism, we shouldn't even try to come to any conclusion. Our whole pursuit of knowledge lies in justifying our beliefs as well as we can.
Then this is where i disagree with the trilemma's conclusion. Just because a goal is unattainable does not mean the insight that can be gathered from the journey is meaningless.

>When it comes to antinatalism, what goes in it's favour is all the suffering, and pain, which is there for real. What goes against it is that some people claim there's meaning to life and that living is worth it.
And here i propose there is no meaning to life. There is no meaning to suffering. Take that as you will.

>In my opinion, not having children is better than having them if you're going to fuck up their life, directly or indirectly, that is by being a shitty parent or living in horrible conditions, respectively. Thinking that having kids is good for its own sake is ridiculous.
Agreed.

>Having children today is, in general, a personal choice (technically it has been for a while), which comes down to "I'm going to have a child because I want to (or someone else wants me to)". No one is obliged to have children.
Agreed here too.

>If one has the capacity to raise a child, has the wealth and conditions to raise and educate them well, it is reasonable to have a child. Selfish, but reasonable.
Not nescessarily selfish, you do not know if the child will share your idea or not. The child can fully appreciate life despite it's suffering, as you would do. Hypothetically. You are not creating a child for yourself. You are creating a child so that a child gets to be created. That can not be selfish.

>Even an antinatalist could have a child, if they had a utilitarian point of view, and had a child for the greater good. "Child, you're going to be a much better antinatalist than myself. Spread the word, liberate the people, like I never could."
This is actually somewhat reasonable, you can't convince a people to kill themselves if you yourself continue to kill yourself.

What if you were to birth a child into poverty, and shit, and filth and death and destruction, with the hope that the child and others like him might be able to change the course of human history one day? And what if they were to succeed?

Ah yes i'm on page 42 now. I'm a fucking slow reader, it's horrible. Although philosophical novels are not a very good source on philosophy in my opinion. Too close to poetry and too detached from systematic explanation. It's a decent self-help book, but so is the bibble.

It sure is nice meeting the world's only immortal human. Wow dude you are just so manly and awesome and are going to live forever and face reality and adversity with headstrong determination and you are going to contribute to society so much yeah man we should totally be like you.

No, philosophy or ideaology or anything academic has gone down in popularity as a whole. If anything theirs more pessimism in philosophy now then theres ever been

>Then this is where i disagree with the trilemma's conclusion. Just because a goal is unattainable does not mean the insight that can be gathered from the journey is meaningless.
I agree with you.

>And here i propose there is no meaning to life. There is no meaning to suffering. Take that as you will.
Even if there is, it differs from person to person, so it's not very fun to discuss.

>Not nescessarily selfish, you do not know if the child will share your idea or not. The child can fully appreciate life despite it's suffering, as you would do. Hypothetically. You are not creating a child for yourself. You are creating a child so that a child gets to be created. That can not be selfish.
What I meant by selfish was "because I want", not "because it will be beneficial for me". My bad for the poor word choice.

>What if you were to birth a child into poverty, and shit, and filth and death and destruction, with the hope that the child and others like him might be able to change the course of human history one day? And what if they were to succeed?

That's a lot of "what ifs". Your question is a variant on what I said above, that it's reasonable to have a child if you have the resources and the capacity. Here, though, the parent doesn't have the resources (wealth, conditions), but has the capacity, acquired in some way, to raise the child. They would have to be a master. If you meant that the parent lacks even the capacity but only has hope, then the child would have to be extraordinary, an amazing autodidact.
It's clear that the odds are terrible, I definitely wouldn't birth a child into such a terrible environment. It could be an idiot as much as a genius.
In the situation you described birthing a child would most likely be terrible. The most sensible option for a person which has a capacity to be a parent is to adopt and raise the child, which even an antinatalist should do; after all, they are against birthing children, not against raising them.

>Even if there is, it differs from person to person, so it's not very fun to discuss.
This is what i mean. There is no meaning to life. You create whatever meaning you choose.

>What I meant by selfish was "because I want", not "because it will be beneficial for me". My bad for the poor word choice.
Sure. Wanting a child purely because you want a child is selfish. What about wanting a child so that child might bask in the world of all that has been created by mankind? To further the goals of happiness and advancement? Now the intention itself is no longer selfish.

>That's a lot of "what ifs".
A little thought experiment if you will. I have to admit i had one of the newer terminator movies in mind while coming up with this.

>Your question is a variant on what I said above, that it's reasonable to have a child if you have the resources and the capacity. Here, though, the parent doesn't have the resources (wealth, conditions), but has the capacity, acquired in some way, to raise the child. They would have to be a master.
A child does not need to be raised well to become a great person though.

>If you meant that the parent lacks even the capacity but only has hope, then the child would have to be extraordinary, an amazing autodidact.
This is what i meant. Actually yes, i understand now. The kind of regime would ultimately be beneficial for an anti-natalist, as it would seek the end of a significant amount of human lives, making my thought experiment kinda shit.

>It's clear that the odds are terrible, I definitely wouldn't birth a child into such a terrible environment. It could be an idiot as much as a genius. In the situation you described birthing a child would most likely be terrible.
Yes. My mistake was implying that the pain and suffering of one child might help alleviate the pain and suffering distributed by such an oppressive regme. This is clearly in conflict with the anti-natalist stance.

>The most sensible option for.../ /...If not direcly, at the very least indirectly.
(sorry Yea Forums ran out of characters, i have to cut most of the quote, you know which part i quoted though.
I want to explore the idea of the "amount" of pain. Because by this system of measure, life is pretty obviously undesirable because as long as life exists, suffering will be perpetuated, no matter in how small amounts. Thus a conscious effort of every human being to stop having children would permanently alleviate that issue. But only among those that are prepared to carry this out. As i said before, i don't think life will ever cease, at least not within the universe we inhabit. I think there's a fair chance that somewhere, another clump of bacteria will appear, and begin the process of life anew. And thus suffering. So who is there to measure what amount of pain is acceptable? What is too much? And what is it about pain that is globally unacceptable? If pain is neverending, what use will there be of eradicating it in a single spot in space and time when we could focus on making life more bearable on a larger scale?

I'm not ready to fully embrace anti-natalism but I do find people who push natalism detestable even. If any you anons decide to be part of bringing a life into the world I hope you feel the full guilt of your choice as you do. Their suffering is your fault. Only the heartless could have no reservations or clear conscious about it. If you 'love' your offpsring you'd feel pain knowing your brought this horror upon them. Why would you do that to yourself even, having to live with that?

Just because you came out half baked doesn’t mean others will bud

>I am in control-
no you're not, you're a manifestation of your influences and of course your desires

>I am not selfish
Having kids can not get any better than being selfish, while it's intentionally malicious at its worst.
The decision to bring them into existence depend entirely on your interests.

The only time this post has ever been applicable

Attached: 1537234358583.jpg (170x213, 6K)

Oh fuck oh shit i think i actually cut out not the quote but my actual retort too

>no you're not, you're a manifestation of your influences and of course your desires
Oh, so i am in no control over anything? No, i disagree. As a retort i could kill myself just to prove my consciousness, deliberately go against every single belief, influence and desire i have ever had to prove to you that the greatest influence i have ever had is a human brain. Scan a man's brain today and predict all the actions he will be able to undertake tomorrow. Do you think this would really be possible? But then again you would hopefully believe in the much more logical variant of this; that the reactions of the man to the events around him are based entirely on what he has experienced up to this point. And bravo. Now you believe in psychology.

>Having kids can not get any better than being selfish, while it's intentionally malicious at its worst. The decision to bring them into existence depend entirely on your interests.
You consider that a decision, but a decision implies the person is in control enough to have choices to pick between. This is in conflict with your previous statement. Regardless, having kids is not nescessarily selfish, at the very least the motivation doesn't have to be, just as the results don't have to be. Reminder that a person can directly go against their interests even if they have nothing to gain from doing so.

Personae as in roles, the most harmful of which are not the hierarchical ones like master-slave, but the "innocuous" ones like family. Personae in the name of which most evil is deliberately done.

why dont you kill yourself then
or any of your anti natalist bros for that matter

cringe thread

I don't care if my child suffers.

>he was able to get a net $100,000 line of credit before he turned 40
white people

What is it that you find so offensive about anti-natalism? Have you honestly sat down and thought about what you are? What you are doing and your eventual fate?

Demonstrate how having a kid is not selfish

>the breeders
lmao

Could you elaborate?

>So who is there to measure what amount of pain is acceptable? What is too much?
Acceptable for what/to whom? In general, people have different pain thresholds, for both psychological and physical pain. People choose their actions according to these thresholds; we make assessments on whether or not the returns of an action will be worth it. "If I raise my child to be a doctor, he can help heal plenty of people and save lives." This is an artificial example, but you see my point.

>And what is it about pain that is globally unacceptable?
People in general don't like to suffer, physically or mentally. This can be acceptable, you can put yourself through pain and suffering voluntarily if you know there will be a benefit from it. Getting a doctor to amputate your leg is painful as fuck and you might die, but if he doesn't do that you'll get gangrene and die an even worse and more painful death for sure. What is unacceptable is creating pain and suffering for their own sake, that is, because the one creating them is doing it solely for their own pleasure. Amputating a mans leg to save him, acceptable; amputating a mans leg just to cause him pain, unacceptable. Exposing a person who fears dogs to a dog with their knowledge and in a controlled manner to help them overcome their fear, acceptable; exposing a person who fears dogs without them knowing and surprising them which could only increase their fear of dogs, unacceptable. (The second example is for psychological pain, for the sake of completion.) There is also accidental suffering, a tragedy such as a bear attack, which is neither evil, like torturing someone, nor beneficial, like working two jobs so your baby brother can eat. We can only try to prevent this danger which is inherent to our existence. There's also natural death, old age, sickness, which are inevitable, and a solid argument against birthing children. Is it worth it? I don't know, but I believe it is. The more we know, the more powerful we become, but we have to pay the price.

>If pain is neverending, what use will there be of eradicating it in a single spot in space and time when we could focus on making life more bearable on a larger scale?
Well that's a good question. If antinatalists focus solely on humans (they probably do, and that makes sense) this is an irrelevant question. If they think all conscious life shouldn't suffer I don't know what their solution would be.

Demonstrate how having kids is selfish first so i can get a better idea what you're after.

Have you ever seen a wildflower bloom in the green grass in springtime? The temporary life of single wildflower and your equally temporary ability to perceive it –the existence of these two things at the same time – justify the entire expanse of sentient existence. The growth of the flower is a rebellion against death. The sun that nourishes it fries it into wilting. But you have been incapable of avoiding contact with the living-dead flower. You could not avoid it. The flower grows not for you, and would grow and die and grow and die one million times without you. But you were granted the miracle of human experience, the impossible gift of perception. Time itself conspired against you so that you and that wildflower would live at the same time. You were given the power to know this.

And you think life is a curse?

I already told you
>The decision to bring them into existence depend entirely on your interests.

And as another user replied; You can't dictate the burden of others, it's not your call to make.
When your kid doesn't exist, and therefore has no interest in existence, you're obviously the only one left to desire something on their behalf.

Why do you assume humans can only prefer things for enjoyment? Stop projecting your epicuckean views on your superiors, numale.

Attached: 051AE44A4575470B9DE2D5B9F81EDB2F.jpg (480x360, 17K)

This is quite beautiful. You'll be shit on for appealing to poetics, but poets really are "the unacknowledged legislators of the world" (says Shelley).

Evocative thinking like this precludes you from fully participating in most kinds of utilitarianism, for which you should be grateful

Yes it's a curse. That knowledge is worthless. If you look at it without caring about dumb things like probability which doesn't mean shit on the scale we're dealing with, all you gain out of life is suffering. It is the single value. All conscious life acts only in avoidance or mitigation of it. And at the end, all you gained out of your experience is exactly that. Suffering and the avoidance and mitigation of it. If you did not experience it at all, you would have been better off and you also wouldn't have lost anything. There's nothing to actually gain here. Even if you can't see that pleasure (all forms of it, even the abstract ego wankery that is meaning) only exists as a controlling measure and only gives further context to suffering, you'll still experience it that way. Because that's how it works.

Is Buddhism antinatalist?

>implying racism is a bad thing

>Posts literally gay shit
>Superior
Uhuh

Nothing gay about a little wrestling match in the locker room

Which country is this?

>Acceptable for what/to whom?
Acceptable as in at which point does pain becomes something to be eradicated

>In general, people have different pain thresholds, for both psychological and physical pain. People choose their actions according to these thresholds; we make assessments on whether or not the returns of an action will be worth it. "If I raise my child to be a doctor, he can help heal plenty of people and save lives." This is an artificial example, but you see my point.
People consider much more than simply pain, and oftentimes they tend to act without consideration also, but in part, yes you are correct.

>People in general don't like to suffer, physically or mentally. This can be acceptable, you can put yourself through pain and suffering voluntarily if you know there will be a benefit from it. Getting a doctor to amputate your leg is painful as fuck and you might die, but if he doesn't do that you'll get gangrene and die an even worse and more painful death for sure.
Agreed so far.

>What is unacceptable is creating pain and suffering for their own sake, that is, because the one creating them is doing it solely for their own pleasure. Amputating a mans leg to save him, acceptable; amputating a mans leg just to cause him pain, unacceptable. Exposing a person who fears dogs to a dog with their knowledge and in a controlled manner to help them overcome their fear, acceptable; exposing a person who fears dogs without them knowing and surprising them which could only increase their fear of dogs, unacceptable. (The second example is for psychological pain, for the sake of completion.)
At this point we are wading into the territory of individual morals of what "should be done". How this differs from the previous little "section" is that here we are extending our opinions and morals beyond ourselves, making for a hazy justification. What you have described is the general western sense of morality of today. The concept of evil is inseparably linked to morals. And again, morals can only be justified as an opinion or a practical code of conduct, not as an empirical law of the universe. Thus evil is relative. Whether or not "evil" "should" or "should not" is relative, the concepts of "should" and "should not" are themselves relative. They can only be justified as a means to an end. The end itself would thus need to be objectively the best solution possible for this argument to not be based on opinion. I understand the munchhausen trilemma now.

I can't help but feel that somewhere along the way i have corrupted this discussion by making use of that which i am now using as an argument against. I'm not sure. My concentration is fading. If you're interested i can send my discord for further discussion.

>There is also accidental suffering, a tragedy such as a bear attack, which is neither evil, like torturing someone, nor beneficial, like working two jobs so your baby brother can eat. We can only try to prevent this danger which is inherent to our existence. There's also natural death, old age, sickness, which are inevitable, and a solid argument against birthing children.
If life were purely that, i would maybe agree. But we are not, at least yet, brought into this world to serve as electrical batteries or tortured by extraterrestial forces since birth. We can find solace in anything from religion to music to watching insects skitter under rocks. Even if life truly was nothing but suffering, as long as it would be conscious life, i can assure you that suffering would not be the only emotion felt. Although in that case i would agree. If i had the option to birth a child into life-long captivity guaranteed to continue 'til the end of time, i would not give our captors the satisfaction. And again we return to morals and opinions. But i don't view morals or opinions as bad. You might get that idea because i use them as a counter-argument so much, but no. I very obviously have mine.

>Is it worth it? I don't know, but I believe it is.
I would consider life only to be worth it for some. I'm sure this comment of mine relates to some point i have made.

>The more we know, the more powerful we become, but we have to pay the price.
Rules are made to be bent. Although that's more a belief of convenience than a universal truth. I view life as a set of natural deductions from certain universal constants interacting with eachother in a disconnected but interlinked system we call life. The price we have to pay is death, but it is not a price at all, i believe that to be a misnomer. No, more of a consequence of life itself.

>If antinatalists focus solely on humans
If antinatalism is primarily about preventing suffering in any form i don't see why they would.

>If they think all conscious life shouldn't suffer I don't know what their solution would be.
I would imagine it to be something along the lines of "Eventually all intelligent life realizes the perpetual cycle of suffering, and hoping to eradicate it, they eradicate themselves, hoping others eventualy come to the same realization". You can see my bias here as i am assuming an anti-natalist is stupid enough to believe their opinion is objectively the end-all be-all ultimate solution eventually stumbled upon by all.

What i think is so damn interesting about these questions is how a consciousness acts when maintained by an instinct-driven body.

In that case, i say it is possible to act against your interest. If it is in your interest to have a child that you do not have because of the suffering you are sure it would experience if brought into that situation, you act against your interest, and thus selflessly towards the would-be child. Conversely, if it is not in your interest to have a child, as it (nowadays) probably is not, you can still decide to nurse another human into the world, and let them see all that has become, to better the world, to better themselves.

>And as another user replied; You can't dictate the burden of others, it's not your call to make.
You are right. I do not have the authority nor ability to force needs upon someone, but if such needs are inherent to that someone's existence, is it not me that is forcing anything. I am an accomplice at most. I can only choose to prevent all that comes with life to be experienced by a single human being. And life has much, much, much more to offer than the singular sensation of pain.

>When your kid doesn't exist, and therefore has no interest in existence, you're obviously the only one left to desire something on their behalf.
Entirely true. As such it would be safe to assume that they won't mind, correct?

Suffering is not the single measure of the quality of life.

>If you did not experience it at all, you would have been better off
You? Who is you? There would be no me. I would not be better off. I would not be.

>No, more of a consequence for life itself.
Yes, but life is the consequence of the parent deciding to birth a child. I was talking about this in the context of antinatalism. But, in general, I agree.

>On what antinatalists want
Now we're really pushing it; I don't know how formal those antinatalist definitions are.

My battery is dead.

>And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

The level of ideology in this chart Jesus. As if any of those pros couldn’t be cons and vice versa. This is just, if I believe that life is inherently meaningless and without telos what purpose is there in living? In which case the answer, there is none, is obvious. However if you understood for one moment that you could use this life to contemplate the most divine elements, then you’d quickly understand beings preference over non being. This is just waaaah why does being a hedonist suck so bad? Read Aristotle or kill yourself

>Now we're really pushing it; I don't know how formal those antinatalist definitions are.
Sure. That would then relate to that specific brand of antinatalist.

>Yes, but life is the consequence of the parent deciding to birth a child. I was talking about this in the context of antinatalism. But, in general, I agree.
That's true. I was elaborating on my view of life. That there are no rules, only consequences. What you do with them is up to you.

>My battery is dead.
If you ever check back, thanks for the discussion. I've got to go too, but i'll check back eventually.

cringe & bluepilled

Can someone weigh in on this?

In a sense yes. The end goal is Nirvana which is extinction of the self. But I'm not an expert.

>you act against your interest, and thus selflessly towards the would-be child.

The whole fucking point is that you act selflessly to avoid putting others in harm for your own amusement, holy fuck. There is no moral obligation to make decisions on someone else's behalf with the guarantee of pain and risk of serious harm involved.
You have not proven how it's not selfish to have a kid. YOU want a kid, the kid doesn't want anything because it's not even cum yet.

>but if such needs are inherent to that someone's existence, is it not me that is forcing anything

If you make a kid, the kid will have needs and passions, because it's a person and you made that person. So because that much is inherent to sentience, that somehow makes it not your fault that it was you who caused it???

>As such it would be safe to assume that they won't mind, correct?

Same way you would't mind if I stole your money in your sleep. No consent is no consent given.

If you want to see how suffering is a bigger part of life than you think then stop thinking anti-natalism is wrong on the grounds that your own life is great. Would you trade it with the average life of another person? How about the average life of another non-human mammal?

kek is that tooltime, forgot about him years ago

>I life in a country
Pathetic excuse for a coward who hides behind its master. You are livestock and process existence as livestock, no need to even try to put some meaning in your empty brain.