for you to become an anti-natalist?

Note: I'm not talking about how bad your life has to get; I'm talking about how bad life has to get. How many more holocausts, how many more world wars, how many more plagues, how many more genocides, violent protests, presidencies, how many more people have to starve, how many more people have to get raped, murdered, stolen from, extorted, exploited, etc., how many more animals need to get killed, how much more money has to get wasted on frivolous entertainments at the cost of even more suffering, how much of all that shit NEEDS to happen for YOU to say something like, "Okay, okay. No more. This 'life' thing is getting out of control. This is too stupid. We should stop perpetuating the species. It's not worth it anymore."

Meta suggested that I make another anti-natalist thread, but I thought I'd just put this little spin on it.

A lot of the people I've discussed this with often get caught on this snag.

Usually, I can get people to concede the following premises:
- sentient life is the only thing in the universe that has any objective value
- sentient life is heavily prone to suffering in a wide variety of forms; this is what gives life its value
- suffering is (invariably) a negative value experience
- all suffering ought to be minimized, if not outright eradicated

but what people tend to have trouble with is the following premise:
- all the suffering in the world outweighs the "good" in the world
- there could never be a "good" that makes life, as a whole, "worth it"

A lot of people think that the "good outweighs the bad", and that "without the bad, there can be no good--therefore, the bad has some degree of positive value." Both of these assertions are, from my perspective, insane. Even more insane, however, is the assertion that there is "balance" in the world. That's even worse.

So, I just have to ask... call it a thought experiment, I don't know, but how bad does it have to get for you to concede that "replication for the sake of replication" with regard to the human condition is a fundamentally insidious prospect that should be eschewed in favor of anti-natalism?

Personally, I think we're already there. We've been there since abiogenesis.
Or, well, "asapiogenesis", if you will.

well, i'm just saying, i don't think it's for anybody
anybody intelligent, that is

and this is just the type of shit that makes everybody seem to think that i believe i must be better than everybody else

I don't believe I'm better than anyone else. I just don't drink. And I consider that a virtue. Is that okay?
Because drinking is a vice. I refuse to have vices. Is that wrong?

It's only natural that I'm going to frown upon those who not only have vices, but are COMPLACENT about their vices.

not only is ranch fucking DISGUSTING

it's also not vegan

Anyone who uses alcohol to have "fun" is the epitome of "no fun".

Well, that cannabis.

It means the same fucking thing. Don't go all grammar nazi on me because I really don't give a damn.

I'm sure your parents will give a damn once I send them this progress report.

If you're getting drunk, you're getting drunk. Pretty sure that's the whole idea.

If you're getting buzzed, you're still dysfunctional. Just mildly.

That's an extreme circumstance though that's reserved for 21sts. Normally I prefer to hover between the buzzed and drunk states kind of early so I can have a few hours to drink water and sober up enough to drive home.

Or, you can... not drink, and never have to worry about it.

Yup, it blurs out all the...'unimportant' stuff, and 'fun' becomes easier.

"Fun".

That depends on the tolerance of the user.

No, it doesn't. That's what intoxication is. Making yourself dysfunctional. Period. The end.

stupid shit, no doubt

I'll never understand why people would ever want to get drunk.
Ever!

Quote from: Verbatim on February 03, 2015, 12:24:26 AM

lots of words

felt like i was pretty damn clear, actually

Quote from: CK97 on February 02, 2015, 09:32:12 PM

Quote from: Verbatim on February 02, 2015, 11:50:32 AM

Mega Sceptile PM'd me saying that he wants to just give me the win without battling me since he's Bug and I'm Fire.

I did indeed say this.

All right, then. I wonder how forfeiting should affect your win/loss ratio...

Nah, probably shouldn't affect it.

Stalin was an atheist. Doesn't make him "my cup of tea".

Quote from: The Waifu Master on February 02, 2015, 05:46:09 PM

Holy fuck this thread...
Both of you are a couple of dipshits for arguing this hard.

I'm going to be honest here, I'm only continuing this debate because his reactions are fucking hilarity gold.

Well, that ends that, then.

Enjoy being objectively wrong. And delusional.

All it really proved is how Onision is a blatant autist, which I already conceded to.

>it

There was like, six or seven 20+ minute videos, dipshit. You didn't watch a single one all the way through.

Quote from: Classic Mordo on February 02, 2015, 05:35:02 PM

I thought that's what the point of the whole thread was?

It was about whose content is worse not who is more morally reprehensible.

Don't even bother. He's WAY too fucktarded to understand that basic shit.

Too bad the videos I gave have

NOTHING

to do with schizophrenia.

Give me something substantial, like I don't know, duping an entire audience into shelling out 100k for you to basically sit on your ass and whine about nonexistent issues. That'd be a good start. Chop chop now.

Right after you explain to me how that is worse than Onision's behavior. Because it isn't. Chop chop now. Worthless cunt.