/b/ - Random

>>88878
template

Very based meme.

>>88878
I don't want to reproduce because we are a stain on the face of our beautiful mother earth. Also giving birth to a child equals giving them a lifetime of suffering. Even if I dicide not to breed more monsters there will always be enough people out there who will do so whatever.

>>88898
>safe our beautiful people
Do yourself a favor and put your people to sleep if you really care about them. No one can suffer if they don't exist. Life is but a blink of an eye. Peace and death are forever.

>>88979
Object (materials, matter, things, stuff) and subject ([higher] consciencenes) form our personal world. However, the subject requires the object (no brain = no means to process perceived data = no world). This means you won't feel or think a damn thing when you are dead. Absolute Nirvana. That's Arthur Schopenhauer for you, sweetie X0X0X0X0

Either that or there is some kind of God who provides a netherworld or something like that.

>>88992
>This means you won't feel or think a damn thing when you are dead.
So you assume. You have no evidence for or against.
Also, Arthur Schopenhauer was a nobody who was self deluded into thinking his masturbatory fantasies mattered. Even his own mother despised him.

>>88997
Nah I was just using him as a basis for >>88979 to make a compelling argument. Of course it should be somewhat common sense. Also this is a meme thread and Schopenhauer is one.

>>88999
Lmao did not know about this letter.

>You have no evidence for or against.
The antithesis does not have any proof either. However, let's make up some scenarios:

Only objects exist (dunno some rocks in the void):
No one is there to witness it = no opinion of this state of the world = no suffering pitty or whatever.
The only reason why it is sad is that your are the subject manifesting this imaginary world, thus this fantasy land of floating rocks actually has object AND subject.

Only subject exists (omnipressence?): You would not have any data to process thus your mind would be empty. Imagine a computer without operating system just CPU, GPU, RAM and so on. It has the power to calculate but without any data to work with it's useless and devoid of purpose.

>>88880
the blank template says it all, actually.

>>88992
how does
>you won't feel or think a damn thing when you are dead
equates to
>Absolute Nirvana
?

If you don't have any kind of consciousness anymore, thus not any ability to feel, how can you feel absolute nirvana?

>>88973
You know, this post reminds me of "religious" people who go to church once or twice a month and occasionally remind their non-religious friends about how bad hell is. How it's a place of suffering so terrifying you cannot even imagine it, how it's eternal and inescapable. I always find those people funny because it's obvious that they don't truly believe in that crap. If they did they'd be screaming in the streets about it. Praying and whipping themselves every night before sleep, begging for forgiveness for their sins. Kissing the feet of every beggar they see and so on.

But do they do any of that crap? Of course not, what are they, stupid? They just go to church once in a while, talk to people about their religious ideas because it makes them feel good then keep on with their life exactly as if there wasn't any heaven or hell or god, or anything like that.

Just like this cutie over here, talking about her edgy ideas, about how people are monsters, life is suffering and we should all disappear while posting a drawing of some bored, cool girl and then most likely going back to her mundane, normal life. You're so adorable anon-chan, I want to hug you!

>>88973
Calm down, Zeke.

>>89508
>Just like this cutie over here, talking about her edgy ideas, about how people are monsters, life is suffering and we should all disappear while posting a drawing of some bored, cool girl and then most likely going back to her mundane, normal life. You're so adorable anon-chan, I want to hug you!

Aww thanks. XOXO

>>89508
ur so anti edgy bro o.0

>>89508
This. They are pathetic and simple-minded.

>>89508
rarely do i come across a post i hate, but this is one of them. from start to finish it was unsatisfying and annoying

>>91049
Puppy :D

>>88878
I used and modified your template, hope you don't mind. Though honestly this is just another example that >>88880 is enough.

>>88973
>No one can suffer if they don't exist. Life is but a blink of an eye. Peace and death are forever.
Why do anti-natalists say such faggoty things?

>>112159
Overpopulating the planet with useless flesh machines is more faggoty I'd say

>>88997
t. the old woman he shoved down the stairs

>>112159
I get the feeling that they tend to lack self-awareness, since most of their ideas seem so half baked. Most of them are hypocrites, though in fairness they probably don't realise it. Their beliefs are all rooted in their own personal feelings of disgust or disdain for human life or society, to the point that they seem inseparable. They value the planet or "mother nature" arbitrarily over human life, with no actual justification given, just lots of flowery language. You literally can't even construct a charitable argument from most of the things they say, because the starting point is always "humans disgust me" or "procreation disgusts me". On the rare occasion that they do try to justify or elaborate on their beliefs, their entire position invariably collapses into hedonistic utilitarianism. But this usually ends up seeming like an ad hoc justification for their own disgust response to me, instead of a sincere philosophical or spiritual argument like you might get from a nihilist or satanist or something.

I have to agree with >>89508's very satisfying and not-annoying post.

>>112652
What does hedonistic utilatrianism even entail? And are you referring to random anti-natalists like >>88973 or just women that don't want children?

>>112676
I feel like I read something like this in a redpiller circle.

>>88973
shut da fuck up zeke

>>88973
did this post trigger male lurkers or something?

>>88973
Brainlet take.
If humans are a stain and deserve contempt, then what is it for? For hurting ourselves and other animals?
Plenty of animals do that, like that video of the alligator tearing off the other's leg.

>>112652
I'm an antinatalist and I don't pedestalize nature or anything like that. Our biology and sadomasochistic drives work against us. Everything about human society involves redirecting nature but at some point, as a person that practices restraint you inevitably have to throw up your hands and say 'I can't fix this.' Its not derived out of hatred its simply an acknowledgement that nature is suicidal and everything must come to an end.

>>112652
>>112740

addendum: antinatalism in particular is about choosing to die with some dignity as a species.

>>112741
eh I'm happily child-free (I'm not >>112740 ) but those peculiar and pretentious natalist anons had a point about that particular talking point, it's super melodramatic for really little reason.

there's 1000s of ways one might help the planet or the human species that don't relate to not having more or less children. Acting like there's some epic meaning to it is martyr-ish. Not to say the weird natalism propaganda isn't annoying. It is. But there's better hills to scream on than the child v. childfree thing.

>>112668
I'm referring to antinatalism as a moral theory.

>>112746
I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I'm not a natalist. Pointing out antinatalist melodrama doesn't make someone a natalist zealot. Being happily child-free doesn't make someone an antinatalist, either (otherwise I would definitely be an antinatalist). Most people are neither.
I'm not sure what you mean by weird natalist propaganda either, are you referring to some of the other posts in this thread? Because I don't see any natalist arguments being made except for possibly in the OP picture.

>>112741
How pretentious does one person need to be to presume to know what a "dignified" end for an entire species looks like?