Is Reddit based now?

Beatles is reddit tier and anyone who disagrees is also reddit

how can you listen to a significant amount of the beatles and not know when they started and ended

guys guys
Dave Mustaine was actually in Metallica

fucking death worshipers

filthy phoneposting reddit user

>Is Reddit based now?
They've been based ever since r/The_Donald was created

this is only true if you're from the timeline where the beatles broke up

N-NANI?

I love how mad breeders get at childfree

give me a quick rundown on the non-breakup timeline

test

Cuz hes a reddit retard that overcomplicates his sentences for no reason

it’s less angry and more pity

>breeders

how much of a delusional cuckold do you have to be to make terms like “breeders”

>breeders
You notice how everyone started calling you faggot again? It's because you unbelievable faggots made this up the minute everyone decided to give you a chance.
Enjoy your evolutionary dead end, fucking junkie.

Case in point.

I was gonna say it really just seems like a very poor attempt at trying to shame people for procreating

It's faggot cope for the fact that what they're doing is indeed unnatural and a one way road to death and nothing else.

what case, you literal evolutionary failure. you have no case.

humans have sex

imagine being the last link in your ancestry line tracing back hundreds of thousands of years, ending your family name forever because you got obsessed with a subreddit or some bullshit

sweetie, learn that most of guys who got a vasectomy save their cum babies: it's just the most convenient way to have sex (one day you'll learn what it is) without having kids by accident

To signal that he's an "album listener" pretty much.

>it's just the most convenient way to have sex (one day you'll learn what it is)
fucking lol

wear a condom or take the pill you stupid fuck. imagine permanently cuckolding your genetic lineage over hedonism.

imagine wasting your time on Yea Forums pretending to be a big fish in a small pond when you’re an alt-right brainlet with a weak body

hello sal

>muh genetic lineage
Go back to your RPGs

Imagine spending a huge chunk of your life less happy and fucking a kid up because you care about pointless shit like passing your genes on. Kids aren't for everyone and it's a good thing that those of us that don't want them aren't having them anymore because resenting our kids makes us real shit parents.

he EVEN WROTE SOME OF THEIR RIFFS...............

I guess he doesn't know that record companies in the 60s and 70s forced their artists to put out at least one album a year. It wasn't until the 80s when artists generally took 2-3 year gaps between releases.

>pointless shit like passing your genes on
what is not pointless to you? not having children due to fear of being a bad parent is obviously a genuine concern. I would agree that children are not from everyone, but that itself is a different attitude than the one found with communities like /r/childfree and /r/antinatalism or whatever it is -- those people go beyond what point and have a general disgust for anyone who chooses to have children.

>realisation that no one even cares about their ancestry and it'll all be forgotten in 3 generations anyway, nothing matters
>realisation that bloodline has endured for thousands of years and humans' sole biological function is to reproduce, and to not do so would be failing everyone who came before you, basically cucking yourself

conflicted

Attached: 1552178548258.jpg (1252x1252, 111K)

That”s great but then you invoke all this genetic lineage obligation crap so what’s the difference?

are you the person I responded to? it's only an obligation insofar as you recognize the importance of carrying on your lineage for various reasons...I don't get what you mean by "what's the difference?" -- I generally believe that the point of life from various perspectives is to procreate, I could care less if one disagrees but actively railing against people who choose to procreate is reddit as fuck

You guys are gonna go to hell

>realisation that no one even cares about their ancestry and it'll all be forgotten in 3 generations anyway, nothing matters
no point in laboring over blackpilling thoughts like that. just raise your children right and if you actually care about it a genuine attempt is the best you can do

>I generally believe that the point of life from various perspectives is to procreate
>I would agree that children are not [for] everyone

getting some mixed messages here, mr. opportunist. incidentally, the correct phrase is “i couldn’t care less.”

david is a typical reactionary who doesn’t believe in anything except sticking it to the progressivist culture that only really exists in his bloated imagination ripped straight from /pol/.

lol I realize that's the technically correct term but I wasn't thinking in depth about that expression as I typed it, I could care less about that, the main point is that the biological point of life is to procreate and it can also be religiously/morally/lineage motivated

of course the little cuckold associates real life with his cuck shed games

>I wasn’t thinking in depth
this seems to be a recurring theme

hur hur

Attached: christopher poole.jpg (480x640, 119K)

And as for the people who seem to go against this moral, religious (both subjective btw) or biological imperative?

If you are a hedonist who hates kids, don't have kids. You're gonna have a terrible life and having kids would only extend your suffering. If you are a robust person who is willing to live a good life with strong morals, having kids in this context would be a good thing and perhaps amount to some sort of "destiny" or "meaning"

obviously that's their prerogative? no shit it's subjective

Faggot derailers

there's nothing to derail

It's a term born in the homosexual community to deflect from the fast that they are, in biological terms, defective.

Tripfag

>this false dichotomy between hedonism and your vague conception of a good person
all reactionaries are paper tigers. drop your trip loser.

i don’t think you’re being very candid with me, david. how much stock do you put into going against what you describe as the penultimate biological imperative, morally? and don’t lie to me, either.

Attached: 071DA54C-38FE-4803-B5CC-5DC87B8D6312.jpg (730x799, 89K)

is that real?

Attached: george.png (414x433, 168K)

Hedonism is death and you clearly worship death

cute impotent schizo babble

low IQ

nobody disagrees. doesnt mean they're bad

But I got a reaction out of you, didn't I? Fucking reactionary loser

answer my question here, david. don’t be a bitch.

I’m indifferent to having kids but how do you not find it sad that a woman gifted a grown man with videogames for sterilizing himself lmao

“reactionary” is a political phrase, it doesn’t mean “one who reacts to something,” you aggressively stupid and uneducated mong.

drop your trip before you embarrass yourself in my presence again.

>those people go beyond what point and have a general disgust for anyone who chooses to have children
And, in the case of r/antinatalism, rightfully so. What's really disgusting is willingly bringing new people into this world and trying to justify it with inane bullshit like " b-but muh genes, muh ancestry".

As for r/childfree, even if having kids wasn't morally reprehenstible I wouldn't blame anyway for their attitude, given parents can be annoying as hell to childless people, especially women.

What do you find disgusting about consciously procreating? How do you argue that having children is 'morally reprehensible'? Is your argument based entirely around that having children makes you responsible for any suffering they may endure throughout life?

Why are you so mad? Maybe because I exposed your ideology as founded on a meme, while mine's based on Facts and Logic and there's nothing you can do to change that.

>Is your argument based entirely around that having children makes you responsible for any suffering they may endure throughout life?
Yes, and it does.

Do you hate your parents?

genuinely what are you talking about
where and when did you expose anything?

why are you ignoring a challenge, david? thought you wanted to play big fish on Yea Forums?

lmao you look like toby mcguire from the spiderman movies
fucking babyfaced motherfucker

Tell me what reactionary means and I'll get back to you, whitefella

post your body and i’ll give you 5 reasons to stop posting

you’re trying so hard to flex but you literally look like spiderman from the raimi movies lmao
this is embarrassing

Attached: 62BC5BFE-2085-4B74-A288-7DA93D9A1D0D.jpg (558x279, 29K)

that’s what i thought, paper tiger.

ok spiderman

Attached: D1BE4161-59B4-4A31-BD57-564C81C47261.png (350x258, 117K)

take a polisci course and figure it out yourself like everybody else.

Nah

why not? afraid you’ll learn something?

Says the guy who talks like he’s in some gay fantasy movie

numale pls, stop associating everything with your shitty fiction. i get it’s the only point of reference you have but it’s not doing you any favors

I just want you to tell me yourself

you should be learning how to fight the green goblin spiderman

If you're not going to have kids why not kill yourself right now? There is no point to your existence. The most important life goal for every single organism on this planet is to procreate. This is why male monkeys, seals, deer, and so on, fight each other to the near death for the chance to procreate with the most fertile females. Their entire purpose of existence - as with every single organism on this planet, including bacteria, fungi, trees, insects, and of course humans - is to propagate themselves. That IS the meaning of life, whether you want to accept it or not. Life is a competition between organisms to try and propagate themselves as much as possible. You can try and bury your head in the sand (likely because you don't currently rate your reproductive chances very highly, so you try and deny that it is actually the most important goal in your life, and in any life). But you cannot change the objective reality of the world around us.

>realisation that no one even cares about their ancestry and it'll all be forgotten in 3 generations anyway, nothing matters
But that's completely false. The survival of one's genes is the most important thing for every single organism on this planet, regardless of one's species. It doesn't matter whether anyone remembers you or not - what matters is whether your genes survive. This is why all organisms will go to extreme lengths and risk life and limb for the chance to propagate themselves.

>realisation that bloodline has endured for thousands of years and humans' sole biological function is to reproduce, and to not do so would be failing everyone who came before you, basically cucking yourself
You are right. Although if you want to trace your entire ancestry, it goes back over four BILLION years actually (since scientists believe that all life on Earth had a single origin, and every single species can trace its lineage to that single origin).

Attached: Eukaryota_diversity_1.jpg (1000x1332, 413K)

based

have sex sweaty

antinatalism is kind of a different idea than just not having children out of hedonism or for a greater number of time/freedom. It's a philosophical idea that it is morally invalid to have children because life only worthless and it is muc easier to suffer than it is to be happy, therefore it's wrong on your own despair. Not that I agree, but it's a pretty good justification for refusing to hve children

*wrong to pass on your own despair

Name your points of reference then since they’re obviously so wildly divergent from the preoccupations of a rising gamer

poor söyboy, thinks everything has to be a le epic pop culture reference

/pol/tards are so scared of whites becoming the minority lol

Didn’t say pop culture you retard

just take your estrogen pills and go to bed mate, you’re not winning this “argument” anytime soon.

I understand the distinction, and I get the point you're making but I have yet to see any valid defense of that viewpoint. Again, it doesn't really bother me personally if one subscribes to that viewpoint, but in my post I was generally referring to the type of shit I see on the sub - that's the only exposure I cared to have to the idea.

it’s primarily rooted in projected self-insecurity. if you’ve ever actually talked to a nationalist you would know that they actually seem to really hate 90% of things that are true about the current state of their nation. they’re only really concerned with their vague, mythical standard for a nation which has never actually existed.

but that’s the entire point of fascism: bombastic myth and anti-materialism, hence the stereotype of the uneducated right-winger.

lmao get a load of this spiderman looking nigga trying to sound smart

>fullfilling the only purpose you have been created for is RPGesque.
and once again the psycologically unfit for reproduction get out of the gene pool by choosing to end their lineage. DARWINED.

Imagine committing the ad hominem fallacy because you don't have an argument.

The personal qualities of your interlocutors do not change the objective reality of biology. The most important life goal of every single organism on this planet, from bacteria to plants to fungi to fish to animals to humans, is to propagate itself as much as possible.

>pointless
If you think that passing on your genes is "pointless" then you have no understanding of nature, biology, evolution, or the world around you. Ignorance or idiocy are probably the only explanations for your attitude. There is in fact no point to life OTHER than propagating one's genes, so if you're not going to do that, there is very little point in you existing.

>Kids aren't for everyone
They are your entire purpose as an organism. But if you want your genes to perish in the ground and if you want to fail to be a biological and evolutionary failure and if you want everybody in your family to despise you then... hang on, what am I even saying? You don't want any of that, because no organism does. Perhaps you have mistakenly come to believe that taking a contrarian position will somehow make you an interesting person and therefore will increase your reproductive chances. I can't think of many other logical reasons why an organism whose entire purpose is to propagate itself would come to have such erroneous views.

>I would agree that children are not from everyone
I disagree. Sometimes we may not like it if others procreate, if they are people we dislike, or who pose a threat to us. But the entire purpose of any organism is to procreate. Every organism should be trying to accomplish this goal.

>It's a philosophical idea that it is morally invalid to have children
Any such idea is predicated upon false assumptions about reality. Reproduction is the most important life goal for every organism on the planet.

Attached: Eukaryota_diversity_2.jpg (804x919, 1.06M)

and you make zero attempt to refute me. i wonder why that is, david? could it be that you actually have zero authority to be discussing politics? why did you hop on your phone to reply to me like this, as if i wouldn’t notice?

holy shit lol toby maguire here thinks i’m whatever faggot bogeyman he’s obsessing over
get a life dude, no one cares about your shitty workout routine or your gay commie politics

Nigga you’re just repeating yourself. We get it. Now hobble off back to your containment board.

>if you want to fail to be a biological and evolutionary failure
I messed that up of course, it should say "if you want to be a biological and evolutionary failure".

>I disagree. Sometimes we may not like it if others procreate, if they are people we dislike, or who pose a threat to us. But the entire purpose of any organism is to procreate. Every organism should be trying to accomplish this goal.
I agree that that's true from a biological perspective, of course, however I was saying that some people make poor parents. This obviously doesn't change the objective fact of procreation being the sole point of the existence of life itself. Also, as an aside some people are unable to procreate due to circumstances out of their control.

you’re either david, one of his equally as weak lackeys or just another reactionary with no argument. it’s all the same to me.

which reminds me, how much can you bench?

By your own logic why would I kill myself because I'm probably not going to have kids? Even if my chance to reproduce in life is .001%, that's still a higher chance than I'd have dead.
Other than that I agree.. but we still don't have to be slaves to our biology, and if kids are a bad idea for certain people or couples, they can always fulfill some of their parental urges by being more involved with neices and nephews etc.

>is triggered by reality
>doesn't have an argument
>erroneously believes i browse /pol/ which i don't - but even if i did, ad hominem / the genetic fallacy (however you want to see it) are both logical fallacies and are not conducive to truth
Sad.

Attached: biodiversity_examples.jpg (800x528, 143K)

It's gonna be weird when automation gets to the point our hegemons decide that their worldwide mixed-race cappucino slave class has been obsolified by AI. I suppose it would be bloody as people began to realize that the anti entropy sentiment they shut down earlier may not have been such a bad thing.

>our hegemons

Attached: jewmer.jpg (595x623, 67K)

holy kek he’s still obsessing over his bogeyman and his crappy fitness routine. you really are a one dimensional “human” being.

Is there a name for the jackoffs that love to call out ad homs, strawman, logical fallacies, etc?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

Pointless because our lines will die out eventually no matter how many babies we pop out.

just for future reference, you could have lied to me and said any amount at all. it’d leave a much better impression than straight up ignoring the question.

favorite pop hit from the 60s?

>me grug strong
>me grug do big lift
>me grug look like movie character
>you grog paper cat
>you grog dumb dumb reaction, no big lift
lmao

What is the point of an outlook like this? Does this worldview not just eventually lend itself to pointless hedonism?

guess you aren’t interested in talking about music, then. see you around.

>I was saying that some people make poor parents
Yeah that's fair enough. Obviously from a purely selfish perspective it makes perfect sense why one wouldn't have others to have kids. You don't want your own children to have competition, or you don't want your hard-earned taxes spent on another person's offspring if they can't provide for their own family and have become reliant on welfare, etc. Some might come up with purportedly selfless and altruistic arguments though - e.g. "I don't think this person should have kids because they are only capable of giving a miserable upbringing to those kids". But I'm not sure if that is really selfless and altruistic - it is ultimately in that person's evolutionary interests to procreate, whether other people like it or not.

We might think some people make bad parents, and we might have very good reasons for thinking so, especially if the parents are neglectful or abusive. Of course in western societies we don't currently prevent people from having kids, though. Perhaps we could - some very right-wing ideologies have famously wanted to sterilise "undesirables". But that would be pretty authoritarian.

>Also, as an aside some people are unable to procreate due to circumstances out of their control
Yeah that's true. And that sucks a lot. Man I hope it doesn't turn out that I'm sterile, that would suck. If it did then I guess I would try and take steps to fix the situation, if possible. If not possible, then I could try and help the survival of my relatives' children (this is what many people without their own kids end up doing, in the form of gifts and such - I have seen it within my own extended family). Because at least then I would try and ensure the survival of genetics as similar as possible to mine.

>a kratom addict talking about supposedly pointless hedonism
hysterical

So people born sterile should just end it?

Not everything has to have a point. It doesn't have to end with full on hedonism either. Not wanting your own children doesn't mean you want to watch the world burn.

dude you literally never talk about music on here, all you do is spam your gay commie shit and brag about your shitty workouts. if you’re gonna try and play the moral superiority card don’t do it so half-assedly.

How is it pointless if it can reduce overall suffering? Are you gonna tell parents who lose their children to murder and disease that their pain doesn't matter? This is why nihilism is retarded

There’s a difference between hedonism and existentialism, dumb dumb.

Good lord

i’m offering to discuss it with you right this instant, though.

he wouldn’t know that

Personally I know what it's like to feel that sort of genetic pressure on your shoulders, considering dying or being unable to procreate and being responsible for your family name/lineage/genetic code being wiped from the gene pool is a terrible thought. I can't imagine what it'd be like to be rendered sterile by something like a random cancer or disease or just general sterility at a young age. It seems unthinkably horrifying to imagine realizing you are sterile at a young age (or any age, really) and will never be able to reproduce.
What do you find purpose in then?
I know. Hence 'eventually.' Also I would consider that sort of outlook more fatalist than anything

nah that’s not how it works mate. go back to discogs.

>Even if my chance to reproduce in life is .001%, that's still a higher chance than I'd have dead.
True. I was just saying that if someone decides that they will never have kids EVER then there isn't much point to them living.

>they can always fulfill some of their parental urges by being more involved with neices and nephews etc
Yeah that is true to be fair. Perhaps that is the best thing to do if one doesn't have one's own kids. You can still try and help the survival of genetics as similar as possible to your own.

>we still don't have to be slaves to our biology
I think this sort of terminology, which I have heard before, fundamentally misunderstands what the word "slave" actually means. To be a slave means to serve the needs of another organism above your own. But to reproduce yourself is the complete opposite of slavery - it is to fulfil your own interests.

Reddit confirmed for based

Attached: breaking-bad-sony-brewing-schraderbrau-01.jpg (480x320, 38K)

Why the fuck do you have to take that shit directly to nihilism and all these sociopathic extremes? Antinatalists argue that that reduces overall suffering too don't they?

what are you talking about? i offered to discuss music with you, and you responded by saying that i never discuss music (which you couldn’t prove if you tried).

my offer is in good faith, if that’s what you’re so hesitant about.

>Why the fuck do you have to take that shit directly to nihilism and all these sociopathic extremes?
don’t you see, user, the reactionary HAS to do that, it’s how they reinforce their ultra thin worldview.

this would work if we didn’t all know your reputation sal. here’s your last say that you so desperately want.

Why are you so sure of that when life has already been going for over four billion years? Okay sure, some scientists believe in the heat death of the universe, which would spell the end of all life - but we do not know for certain that this will happen. We do not know for certain that there are no ways to continue surviving. And continued survival is your entire purpose as an organism. It is the goal of every organism on this planet, and it is only through the successful service of this goal that life still exists today, and that those of us alive today are here at all.

I fucking love that /pol/tards have nothing going for themselves other than genetics lmao

your trust issues with me regarding music discussion is your own personal problem and creation. i talk about music with dozens of people everyday, i don’t know what your deal is.

*are

If there is no way to fix your sterility (fertility treatment can help people who would otherwise be unable to have kids to have kids), then perhaps the most logical thing you can do is help the survival of your close relatives' kids. I guess that's what I would do if I found out I was sterile and could never have kids. Also, sure, staying around to do fun things is probably more enjoyable than suicide.

If you can have kids, though, then not doing so is basically insanity, in my view.

I know man the internet is so crazy isn't it?

The difference is antinatalists are wrong. And I don't know what the nihilism angle comes from. There's nothing nihilistic about my general worldview.

Oh, I see what you're doing. Why is nihilism good?

>What do you find purpose in then?
Taking care of and spending time with family/learning and experiencing things/work/pets

>Your own interests
Sometimes it's in your own and any potential childs interests that you don't have them to begin with

>It seems unthinkably horrifying to imagine realizing you are sterile at a young age (or any age, really) and will never be able to reproduce.
Yeah I guess it would suck, although maybe I am being a bit harsh. Like I said, even if you can't have kids of your own, you can help the kids of your close relatives, since their genetics are similar to yours. Or you could just have fun with your life since that's probably more fun than the unpleasant experience of suicide. But I still of course think that if someone can have kids, but doesn't, then that is a bit stupid.

Are you actually retarded? Holy shit..

>assumes i browse /pol/, which i don't
>even if i did, ad hominem and the genetic fallacy are both logically fallacious
>provides no argument of his own
>is triggered by reality
Sad.

No but I'd appreciate it if you explained to me why antinatalism and nihilism are epic

Not to be unintentionally edgy, but if you do it right suicide would probably only be unpleasant for a few moments. And I dont think I would be able to find living vicariously through your siblings would be as fulfilling whatsoever as having your own children, at least that's how I would see it. At the same time, I also have a religious outlook regarding this issue, so I don't see why someone would be brought into existence being unable to procreate from the get-go if that is the only purpose of existing from an objective perspective. This is obviously outside of the biological imperative you're arguing for itt, though I subscribe to it as well.

You’re the sad one, autist.

Attached: E19A9A68-E5C2-481A-9423-0176F9992509.jpg (1242x637, 441K)

reactionaries are extraordinarily proud of being uneducated. many of them openly look down on supposedly “leftist” academia/intellectualism despite strangely never or rarely ever taking the time to actually sit down and read something which may challenge themselves (see: )

How about using your own words to define something you're accusing me of being when I ask you to?

Why they're epic? What are you even asking? What's your native language?

What point are you trying to make here? That he replied to you two separate times when you did the same to him?

Again you're deflecting

He replied to me the first time, another user the 2nd. My point is if you’re spending your time on Yea Forums repeating yourself nearly verbatim, you’re most like autistic.

he’s not deflecting, you’re being vague as fuck and he’s asking you to clarify yourself. unbelievably stupid.

Oh my bad, I assumed you were the same person both times. You're probably right, but are you really surprised by the presence of autistic people on Yea Forums? If anything it's kind of efficient to have a set response for the same arguments if you find yourself having to respond to similar posts all the time, if not a bit sterile (relevant descriptor)

He's asking me what my native language is, classic deflection whether he's aware of it or not

>Sometimes it's in your own and any potential childs interests that you don't have them to begin with
I fundamentally disagree. It cannot possibly be in your own interests to not have children if you are capable of having them. The most important thing for you, and for any organism, is to propagate itself. This is just a fact of biology and evolution, just as much as "force = mass * acceleration" is a fact of physics.

As for a potential child, I would say it is absolutely in the interests of this potential child to exist, so that they can try and propagate their genes too. If their parents are neglectful or abusive then it might well be in their interests to be taken into foster care / public childcare / etc. But to say it is against their interests to be born doesn't make much sense in my view. To say that it is against their interests to have a bad upbringing is probably true, yes. But that is a very different thing. And actions can be taken to help make someone's upbringing as good as possible, after which they will become a legally autonomous adult who can make their own decisions.

That's not even the same person.. You accused me of nihilism and when I asked why you were being so extreme you acted like I was calling you a nihilist and it makes no sense why you would think that.

Deflecting what? I literally don't even understand what you're trying to ask.

do tell exactly how in god’s name that is a deflection?

jfc go curl up in the corner with the selfish gene if you have no room for actual human experiences. noone wants to have the conversation you're having because we're not fucking robots that are ready at a moments notice to off ourselves the moment we offer no advantage to our offspring

I don't care if it's the same person, what I was saying was relevant and not extreme at all, and I recognized my misreading right away
It's a deflection because it not only doesn't answer the question, it also attempts to shift attention somewhere else
There's a biological question and a moral question. People who will harm their children shouldn't have any children. By the way, are you pagan? Not insulting you just curious

>this thread
Proof that tripfags are pure cancer

what's worse, the tripfags, the complaining about tripfags or the meta-derailing discussion about how tripfags inherently derail threads, thereby derailing a derail tangentially

Not that guy you're replying to, but I think he is absolutely correct in saying antinatalism is wrong. And just to remind you, ad hominem is not an argument - it is logically fallacious and not conducive to truth whatsoever.

you’re my bitch

>Not to be unintentionally edgy, but if you do it right suicide would probably only be unpleasant for a few moments.
I live in a country where guns are very difficult to get a hold of. With a gunshot to the head, yeah the pain is probably pretty minimal, and death is very quick. For my country, perhaps the most quick and painless methods would be jumping in front of a fast train, or jumping off a very tall building or bridge. But even then I cannot be certain they'd be painless. And if someone who can't have kids decides they want to keep living then all the power to them. I probably shouldn't be suggesting suicide at all - that person is still absolutely entitled to have an enjoyable life and that's what they should probably do, really.

>I dont think I would be able to find living vicariously through your siblings would be as fulfilling whatsoever as having your own children
Yeah it probably wouldn't be *as* fulfilling. But then again working a taxing and sometimes boring job every day for an income isn't *as* fulfilling as being able to travel the world 24/7 with mountains of money, and yet many people must settle for the former when the latter is unavailable, because it is the best option in the given circumstances.

>At the same time, I also have a religious outlook regarding this issue, so I don't see why someone would be brought into existence being unable to procreate from the get-go if that is the only purpose of existing from an objective perspective
Interesting. Personally I am an atheist. So if someone is brought into existence who is themselves unable to procreate, then I would just chalk that up as an unusual biological event. Our bodies, and those of most other organisms, are capable of coming up with all sorts of unusual quirks sometimes. We are imperfect biological systems and unusual quirks can often happen.

I've told you multiple times now that I can't answer your question because I don't understand what you're trying to say. I legit asked for your native language because I'm multilingual and thought it might help.
I also never accused you of being a nihilist even though you keep insisting that I did lol..

How modest of you to not want to associate your brilliant high quality posts with an alias. What a nightmare it would be to have a document of your character.

alternative answer: the fact that you lied about having read marx

I never accused you of accusing me of being a nihilist after I recognized my misreading, retard

*selective reading

I think antinatalism is wrong too. I called him retarded because he called me a nihilist, I asked why, and then he accused me of calling him one.
Why don't you make those posts to him when he starts making crazy unrelated replies to people in this thread?

Well you weren’t wrong

>I live in a country where guns are very difficult to get a hold of.
Sad! Sorry to hear that. Somewhere in Europe? And alternatively, I would imagine heroin overdose might not be so bad, given the lack of consciousness. That one isn't such a sure method, obviously, but it could be a potentially comfy one. This is not an endorsement to overdose on heroin.
I could kind of tell you were a skeptic based on how calculated and rational your perspective on the issue is, and I can definitely respect having a natural conviction as yours on this issue without a spiritual drive per se. The only difficulty with 'purpose' and people being unable to procreate arises when you look at it from the notion of all life having some inherent purpose, which I believe in -- though I am not a determinist.

I didn't know whether you were a nihilist or not, I was just making a general statement
Another character attack

>The most important life goal for every single organism on this planet is to procreate.
Prove it.

I'm not autistic. I used the same points because they applied equally in both circumstances.

I am sorry that you are triggered and that you are unable to come up with a counterargument.

I assume by "reactionary" you mean anybody who is even slightly on the right on any issue whatsoever. Perhaps this is an uncharitable assumption to make, but people who use the sort of language you're using often take that view.

Firstly, people who find themselves on the right / conservative side of some issues might also find themselves on the left / progressive side of others. You seem to be implying that those on the right are wholly uneducated, which is of course a completely ridiculous assertion that only an emotionally charged partisan could ever make. Many of the conservative politicians in my country (the UK) went to very elite schools and universities, and achieved good degrees. This doesn't mean I agree with them - it has nothing to do with that. It is simply a fact that they do have an education, even if you disagree with them strongly.

Secondly, why do you expect people on the right to "actually sit down and read something which may challenge themselves"? Do you expect people on the left to read long conservative treatises which would challenge their perspectives? I would wager that you don't. I think most people are willing to read balanced journalism and then make their own conclusions, but it is perfectly understandable that they don't wish to spend their time reading long and detailed expositions of theory about positions which they have no interest in.

Breeding should be monitored though. 2 babies should be the limit per family

Is this a country by country thing or are you proposing an international law? I would advise you adjust this going continent by continent.

>the selfish gene
Never read it. What's it like?

>if you have no room for actual human experiences
Not sure why you think that. I have said in other posts that I do think if someone can't have children then it's perfectly understandable that they might want to live a good and enjoyable life anyway. And yes I have been way too harsh suggesting suicide which I shouldn't be suggesting at all, to be honest.

But regardless of this, it is still the case that the biological function of every organism on this planet is to procreate and propagate its own genes as much as possible. And if you are able to have children then it is incomprehensibly foolish and idiotic not to, in my view.

>This is just a fact of biology and evolution, just as much as "force = mass * acceleration" is a fact of physics.
Jesus Christ. Stop embarrassing yourself, you have no idea what you're talking about.

Let’s keep this thread going

Attached: 20644B29-39D3-4FDB-9632-77350A99C2A7.jpg (780x1337, 349K)

retard

Attached: 1544572503626.jpg (932x696, 395K)

>it is perfectly understandable that they don't wish to spend their time reading long and detailed expositions of theory about positions which they have no interest in.
Or paragraphs from /pol/tard nationalists

>People who will harm their children shouldn't have any children
Eh, I mean that's pretty subjective, I would say. Most countries have childcare services and can take children away from neglectful, abusive, or otherwise harmful parents, so that those children can at least have a childhood without harm. And also most developed countries do not have legal mechanisms to prevent people from having children on the basis that they "shouldn't", as far as I am aware.

>are you pagan?
No, atheist. Why?

Roll

i don't think it's having trouble. rolling

Yeah, when I use the word "shouldn't" I'm not thinking political policy I'm thinking culture. I asked about your religion because it's interesting to me what people derive morality from.

It's your posts in a nutshell. You'd probably also like Darwin's Dangerous Idea.
Idiotic and foolish makes it sound like someone would only choose not to because they're uninformed or just can't grasp the importance of procreation and that's just not true. We can understand it completely and still reject it for whatever reason.

thebeatlesneverbrokeup.com/

Ah apologies. Sorry I don't know the full context of what you were arguing about.

Yes, the UK. Heroin, hm maybe. Getting a hold of heroin isn't exactly easy either though. Also the stuff you get may not be as pure or strong as you expect and you may end up painfully harming yourself instead of killing yourself. I read the other day about Switzerland I think it was, where they have freely available drug testing - you can take your drugs to a university and they'll tell you what's in it, how strong it is so you know how much is a sensible dose to take, etc. Which is pretty cool. All countries should probably have that.

Anyway. Now that I've thought about it more I probably definitely shouldn't be mentioning suicide at all. Yes I still think that procreation is the fundamental goal of every organism but people who cannot procreate are still fully entitled to enjoyable lives.

>The only difficulty with 'purpose' and people being unable to procreate arises when you look at it from the notion of all life having some inherent purpose, which I believe in -- though I am not a determinist.
Obviously I don't believe in any sort of spiritual or supernatural purpose. I only believe that the purpose / function / goal / objective of every organism is to procreate because that's what nature seems to show us. So I guess my argument is inductive (where you observe something as happening over and over again, and you don't observe anything to the contrary, so you conclude that the repeated observation will ALWAYS be observed - e.g. if every planet I've seen has had a gravitational pull, then we should conclude that all planets have gravitational pulls) rather than deductive (where your conclusion is a logical consequence of some premises - e.g. if every even number is divisible by two, then 10 must be divisible by two simply by virtue of being an even number).

The reason I think it is true is because we see it over and over again in nature. So my argument is an inductive one (we see something over and over again, and we don't see anything to the contrary, so we should conclude that the repeated observation will always be observed), rather than a deductive one (where we take some premises and logically deduce a conclusion from these premises - e.g. if we accept that every even number is divisible by two, then 10 must be divisible by two simply because it is an even number).

I just googled deductive reasoning in science and here is a good quote that explains what I'm getting at:
>As odd as it sounds, in science, law, and many other fields, there is no such thing as proof — there are only conclusions drawn from facts and observations. Scientists cannot prove a hypothesis, but they can collect evidence that points to its being true.
fs.blog/2018/05/deductive-inductive-reasoning/

We believe that all matter has a gravitational pull because that is what we have observed in all matter, for instance. It might be that one day we will observe some matter that does not have a gravitational pull, but we have not observed that yet. So it is reasonable to conclude that all matter has a gravitational pull, based on what we have seen.

Same with the the most important life goal of every organism being procreation. We have seen in every organism that reproduction is what all of them will try and achieve, unless they are suffering from unusual health problems. The vast majority of these organisms will attempt to reproduce, even risking life and limb to do so. On that basis, it is reasonable for us to conclude that procreation is the most important life goal of every organism.

The thing is, bud, people aren’t driven purely by instincts. We have a higher level of intelligence than everything you’ve been referring to.

You haven't provided any sort of argument to support your assertions. I provided an argument, and you have provided none. On Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement, the level that I think is most fitting for your post would be "ad hominem", since you are attacking the characteristics or authority of the author without addressing the substance of the argument.

The reason I think reproduction being the most important life goal of all organisms is as much a fact of biology as "force = mass * acceleration" is a fact of physics is because both are found by inductive reasoning. We only accept that "force = mass * acceleration" because that is what we have always observed, and we have never observed anything to the contrary. Likewise, in every organism, we observe that organisms will always try and procreate, risking life and limb to do so, unless they are suffering from unusual health problems. The vast majority of organisms will try and procreate - health problems are usually the only thing that will prevent an organism from trying to procreate. Even then, it might well attempt to procreate anyway. It is this repeated observation across all organisms that can lead us to the conclusion that procreation is the most important goal for all organisms.

Attached: Graham's_Hierarchy_of_Disagreement.svg.png (1280x960, 213K)

>has no argument and uses ad hominem because he is butthurt that i provided a convincing argument and he is too much of a brainlet to respond to it
Absolutely delicious.

Attached: your tears.jpg (480x360, 23K)

It’s time to stop

There are numerous types of animal that do not reproduce, a good example is lions, chimpanzees or wolves. Only the dominant animals in in their hierarchy reproduce, the other members of the group still exist and work for the benefit of the group as a whole. They do instinctually have the urge and ability to reproduce but not fulfilling this does not suddenly make their existence pointless. If we apply the same framework to humans we can appreciate that humans who chose not to have children still benefit the society as a greater entity, through redistribution of wealth or support to those with children.

Furthermore reducing humans to their most simplistic biological functions totally devalues the other capacities of the evolutionary advancement of the human brain. The irony of posting a genetically driven and animalistic ideology on a board that has a focus on a form of creative expression is clearly lost on the individuals doing so. Animals are generally not aware of what an ideology is or concepts relating to the meaning of life, we are able to create a fictitious meaning to many things, these attachments in turn can have an effect on reality. Choosing your belief system and pursuing it is a uniquely human capacity and creates a purpose through the potential influence it can have on the physical world. If you reduce your whole existence to traits that are purely biological and reductive then it seems reasonable for society to treat you by those same standards, to murder you if you are competition or prevent you from breeding because you are not dominant.

No, reddit is not based, but that does not mean that sometimes there are people capable of forming intelligent or valuable opinions on that website.

This. Nicely stated.

>point out how pointless enraged everyone is being
>the get pointlessly enraged at you for pointing it out and not also enraged
pottery

Attached: 1gb69c.jpg (199x260, 30K)

please see:

>Yeah, when I use the word "shouldn't" I'm not thinking political policy I'm thinking culture.
Fair enough. Maybe we should sterilise certain kinds of criminals though. Especially for very bad and despicable crimes. I think it's against international law though.

>I asked about your religion because it's interesting to me what people derive morality from.
Fair enough. Are you religious?

>Darwin's Dangerous Idea
I'll look it up, I haven't heard of it.

>Idiotic and foolish makes it sound like someone would only choose not to because they're uninformed or just can't grasp the importance of procreation
I'm not trying to be harsh but I think that's true. I would say it would probably only makes sense to not have children when you are capable of doing so if there is literally zero chance of passing on their own genes (due to disability, or their own sterility, or whatever). But even then, there might be a chance that they can procreate in the future, especially as medical technology improves.

It might not be nice to think about life as boiling down to a competition of genes. The harshness of nature can be uncomfortable. But just because something is uncomfortable doesn't mean that it can't be true or that it will go away. There are plenty of uncomfortable facts about the world which are nevertheless true.

I am pretty confident that the survival of one's genes is the most important thing for any organism based on everything we know about nature, biology, evolution, etc.

HE WROTE TWO ENTIRE SONGS
BUT JAMES REWROTE THE LYRICS AFTER HE KICKED DAVE OUT

>If you're not going to have kids why not kill yourself right now? There is no point to your existence. The most important life goal for every single organism on this planet is to procreate
Jesus what a nihilistic and reductive outlook on life. you could spend your whole existence advancing medicine in ways that would save countless lives, creating inspired works of art that become studied from generations and generally cultivating close meaningfully relationships whit your fellow man but apparently its all for nought if your born infertile. meanwhile according to your logic an isis member who rapes and impregnates several women is contributing more to humanity. it doesn't even make evolutionary sense, animals don't just give birth and then drop dead on the spot, the provide usefully guidance to there young and continue to hunt and grow for years after they lose the ability to have kids. there still intrinsically tied to the ecosystem. and aside i think human society is a bit more more fucking complex than eat food and fuck being our only two central functions .

We might be capable of intelligence far beyond every other animal, but that does not mean that we are faultless. Just like other animals, we can make egregious errors. I would argue that if somebody thinks that procreation is not important for them, then they are simply mistaken about the reality that surrounds us. I would argue that if you involve yourself in the competitions of human society and if you take even a cursory glance at nature, then you will see how important it is for every organism to pass on its genes. And how this is the most important goal for every organism in existence.

>doesn't have an argument
>feels triggered enough by my post to reply
That's unfortunate. I only hope that, in the future, you are able to reflect upon your own thoughts some more. And that one day you may feel able to convey reasons for why you think the things that you do.

based and childfreepilled

I hope if you ever have children, I hope you don’t pass your mental illness onto them.

That is just not true. If you want to act so informed about what is important for every organism to do can you at least recognise that for many organisms the main goal is to continue the strongest lines in their hierarchy. A worker ant does not reproduce, an omega animal in a pack will rarely reproduce, yet they still work for the continued existence of other members of their species. A human who actively decides not to have children could just be subconsciously aware of their non-dominant genetic qualities, and therefore making the decision to make resources more available for other people who do have children. Their existence is still just as valid in the scope of your ideas/argument.

Do you realise how impossible it would be to enforce it? Especially on an international level.

The problem is that the males of those species of animals do compete, very viciously, for the privilege of procreating with the females. When the alpha male gets too old, he will be usurped by a younger and stronger candidate.

If the alpha allows betas to still be a part of the group then this is only for his own benefit, either because they serve him, or because if he doesn't indulge them enough then they will turn on him.

From Wikipedia:
>Common chimpanzees use strength, intelligence, and political alliances to establish and maintain alpha position. Alpha males who solely use intimidation and aggression to keep their position often provoke dissent. Coalitions will eventually form, which at some point will topple the alpha male.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_(ethology)

As for music and "creative expression": anything that we do ultimately still serves the purpose of continued survival. Music is something that we use to promote social bonds (and a strong social group is stronger against threats than a disorganised set of individuals), or sometimes to enforce our social status over others (e.g. people who can afford to go to the opera or have music commissioned for them, etc.).

>If you reduce your whole existence to traits that are purely biological and reductive then it seems reasonable for society to treat you by those same standards, to murder you if you are competition or prevent you from breeding because you are not dominant.
Please explain to me what our behaviour reduces to if not biology? What does the behaviour of a computer reduce to if not physics? And you clearly don't understand the function of outlawing murder. Again, a cohesive and somewhat trusting society is stronger against threats. Allowing everyone the chance to procreate prevents dissent. Do you think that human behaviour is completely random and has no mechanisms of causation behind it whatsoever?

Autism.

>you could spend your whole existence advancing medicine in ways that would save countless lives
Most doctors and medical researchers are paid for their efforts so that they can live their lives and raise their families. Some doctors might perform voluntary work for charities - perhaps it is because they wish for a better world, which would benefit any offspring they may have, and increase their survival chances. If you are simply doing things to benefit others without thinking about the benefit to yourself then you are ultimately irrational. Your purpose as an organism is to propagate your own genes. Helping others can be beneficial, as they may help you in return. But neglecting your own interests entirely in the service of others is not a wise thing to do, which is probably why it is so rare.

>apparently its all for nought if your born infertile
I've said in other posts in this thread that I was probably too harsh to suggest suicide which I definitely should not be mentioning at all to be honest. Someone who is infertile can help raise the children of their immediate family, which has some logical reasoning behind it, since their genetics will be very similar to your own. Or you could simply decide to live an enjoyable life because suicide is often painful and unpleasant. But my point is that if you are able to have kids, and you choose not to, then you are basically an idiot, I would argue.

>isis member who rapes and impregnates several women is contributing more to humanity
I would never claim that such a person was doing things for others. He is serving himself. But that may well be rational and a good idea for him to do, if we're just considering his own interests, and if he can get away with it.

(cont'd in next post)

(cont'd from last post)

>animals don't just give birth and then drop dead on the spot
True, because parenting increases the survival chances of offspring.

>i think human society is a bit more more fucking complex than eat food and fuck
The internal combustion engine is complex, but it can still ultimately be explained by fundamental laws of physics. Likewise, human behaviour is complex, but something must explain it. We don't do things for no reason.

Not all males compete, some naturally prioritise self-preservation over competition with other males for mating privileges. You are also focusing on males in an animal hierarchy, many females in a group will not have a litter or reproduce, they will still nurse and look after the young of other group members.

Ants as a genus have the majority of their population essentially sterile, again they serve a purpose in supporting the continuation of their colony by allowing other members to procreate.

Why do we need to reduce actions or existence to such a fundamental level? I'm not entirely disagreeing that reproduction and survival are prime biological functions, I just think there is room for organisms to exist productively without entirely conforming to this concept. In many ways if can be beneficial to overall species survival. You are consciously applying this framework as the meaning of biological existence, meaning and function are two entirely different concepts. Meaning is purely human concept, a luxury that allows us to expand on our base functions and existence. Why behave like a 21st century human being and conform as a member of society if our only purpose is to reproduce? Outlawing murder is dependent on a society that leaves behind behaviour motivated purely by biological functions. If you are so focused on reducing things to their core functions you can do away with creative pursuits entirely, reproduction is still feasible without them.

I would also argue that biology can be reduced to physics so to be entirely reductive maybe the meaning of existence is energy transfer? Allowing everyone the chance to procreate causes overpopulation and is not present in nature, ecosystems regulate themselves or become unsustainable. Algae overproducing in a body of water creates an environment in which no life can be sustained. I think a lot of human behaviour has causation that has evolved beyond the basic motivations of survival.

Before reproduction an organism has to maintain homeostasis, which is more important to an individual organism than reproducing. Learn biology before acting like an expert on it

the autism is strong

>A worker ant does not reproduce
Worker ants are produced by the sexually successful queen ant in order to serve her interests and facilitate the continued survival of her genes, right? They are a product of the great lengths that all organisms will go to in order to ensure the survival of their genes.

In any case, there is a big difference between these sterile worker ants and humans - the vast majority of humans are not sterile. Only rare health conditions will make you sterile. If you are able to reproduce, as a human, it is absolutely in your interests to do so. In fact I think that's the case for every organism that is capable of reproducing.

>an omega animal in a pack will rarely reproduce
In chimpanzees at least, beta males can and do reproduce with females, and these betas will often shift their allegiances between alpha candidates based on how the alpha leads the group and, ultimately, what is in their best interests regarding reproductive chances.

>A human who actively decides not to have children could just be subconsciously aware of their non-dominant genetic qualities, and therefore making the decision to make resources more available for other people who do have children. Their existence is still just as valid in the scope of your ideas/argument.
It makes no sense from their own point of view - they, assuming they are a sexually mature adult human (which is what the vast majority of humans will develop into), are able to pass on their genes. That is their function, biologically, just like the function of the worker ants is to serve their queen. If they fail to pass on their genes then they have failed in their biological role. If they are infertile, then helping to raise the children of their close family makes some sense, since the genetics are similar. But to help raise the children of people that are unrelated, without having your own, is basically cuckoldry.

Ad hominem is not an argument. If any of you can think of any reasons for why you think that my assertions are incorrect then please go ahead, I would be interested to read them.

>It is this repeated observation across all organisms that can lead us to the conclusion that procreation is the most important goal for all organisms.
No, it doesn't. The fact living beings, or sentient ones at least, strive to procreate says nothing about some kind of metaphysical goal associated with reproduction.
The only conclusion we can reach is that, upon finding a new species, we can be sure it has some means of reproduction, but that's it. Trying to ascribe a special meaning in the philosophical sense of the word to it is beyond the scope of science.

By all means feel free to believe procreating should be everyone's be-all and end-all, but stop claiming it's hard science, because it's very far from it. I suggest you read en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability

I find breeding incredibly hot. I get off to the thought of knocking up women.

procreation is immoral and you all sound like high schoolers

well this thread was certainly derailed. not like it had much of a point for existing in the first place
sage

>Not all males compete, some naturally prioritise self-preservation over competition with other males for mating privileges
Which animals are you referring to specifically? In many animals, all males will compete for access to females. They might slink away from a fight if they are defeated, perhaps so that they may have another chance in the future.

>Ants as a genus have the majority of their population essentially sterile, again they serve a purpose in supporting the continuation of their colony by allowing other members to procreate.
Fair, although that is an unusual case. Those worker ants are still of course playing a role in passing on their genetics, though. If they are sterile then serving their closest sexually active relative (the queen) is their best chance for ensuring the survival of their genes.

For humans, where the vast majority are sexually mature and fertile, the best way to ensure the survival of your genes is to have your own kids.

>meaning and function are two entirely different concepts
In some contexts, maybe. They are pretty interchangeable though. What is the meaning of a word? Surely it can be defined purely in terms of its function. In the case of the meaning of life, people usually use that to mean what the most important thing in life is, or what their purpose is on this planet. And surely that thing is reproduction, since it is the only thing that can continue the survival of our genes. Breathing and eating etc. are important in serving that goal, though, of course.

>Why behave like a 21st century human being and conform as a member of society if our only purpose is to reproduce?
Because modern society brings many survival benefits - modern medicine, running water, nutritious and available food, etc.

(cont'd in next post)

Genes don't discriminate, but they don't care other genes either. If reproducing would provide a benefit to your few unique genes but a hindrance to the genes you share with the rest of your species by draining resources, it makes sense not to reproduce.

(cont'd from last post)

>Outlawing murder is dependent on a society that leaves behind behaviour motivated purely by biological functions.
I strongly disagree. Societies exist because they are stronger than individuals. A group of people working together can beat disorganised individuals. It makes sense that these groups would agree to certain principles of behaviour, so that the group can continue to function.

>If you are so focused on reducing things to their core functions you can do away with creative pursuits entirely, reproduction is still feasible without them.
They must serve a purpose, else they would have died out. Music promotes social bonds, thus promoting the strength of a society. Same with other forms of art.

>I would also argue that biology can be reduced to physics so to be entirely reductive maybe the meaning of existence is energy transfer?
Yes, biology can of course be reduced to physics. Is energy transfer meaningful to living things, though? The organisms that are still around today, after four billion years, are those that happened to be best at sticking around. Energy transfer might be meaningful to these organisms if it helps them achieve that goal, I guess.

>Allowing everyone the chance to procreate causes overpopulation
Sometimes societies do curb these chances - e.g. China's one child policy - since they think it is the best way to ensure the survival of the society, and thereby the genes of its inhabitants. If the inhabitants thought there was a better way, and that they could defeat those who told them otherwise, then I'm sure they would try.

>I think a lot of human behaviour has causation that has evolved beyond the basic motivations of survival.
I disagree. We have very complex behaviours, yes. But much like any other successful organism, these behaviours serve the purpose of continued survival, I would argue.

And what is their most important life goal at that point? Reproduction. The other important goals of life, like getting nutrition and water and safety, essentially only exist to fulfil the function of propagating genes.

I never made any reference to a metaphysical goal and I don't believe in anything metaphysical.

>Trying to ascribe a special meaning in the philosophical sense of the word to it is beyond the scope of science.
When people talking about the meaning of life, they often mean the PURPOSE of life. From Wikipedia:
>The meaning of life, or the answer to the question "What is the meaning of life?", pertains to the significance of living or existence in general. Many other related questions include: "Why are we here?", "What is life all about?", or "What is the purpose of existence?"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meaning_of_life

And, in my view, this "purpose of existence" is to continue our survival. That seems to be the purpose for every other living thing too - it's what they're all trying to achieve. Although propagation of our genes might be a better description than mere survival, since most organisms will try and propagate themselves as much as possible, even attempting to dominate the planet as much as is possible.

What other "meaning" to life can there be? Surely there is no more objective answer than the survival of our genes?

>By all means feel free to believe procreating should be everyone's be-all and end-all, but stop claiming it's hard science
Any cursory study of science will inform you that sexually mature adults of any species will attempt to procreate - they will risk life and limb to achieve this goal, and based on any study of their behaviour at all, it is apparent that this goal is the most important of their lives. Even in basic life forms, reproduction will be the organism's default behaviour, given enough nutrition, warmth, etc. I'm sorry that these basic facts trigger you, but they won't change simply because you don't like them, or because you are reminded of your own impermanence on this planet, or whatever it is that upsets you.

That's an interesting idea but is it really true? People across societies will reproduce without any regard for whether they are a drain on society. It seems to me that this is a pretty deeply ingrained behaviour, to try and maximise the proliferation of your own genes.

>When people talking about the meaning of life
Should say "when people talk", of course.

>this thread

Attached: file.png (498x265, 202K)

I would argue that most of the posts in this thread have actually been made in good faith and in the interest of discussion and hopefully the discovery of truth, on all sides of the argument. Whereas "bait" posts are typically ones that are not in good faith and are merely intended to provoke. And I would say that one of the hallmark features of a "bait" post is where the poster has no intention of following up his post with discussion. He just posts his shitpost and leaves.