Looking Back On Life…

[SpiderHerderParticipant 3796]

Autolite wrote:

SpiderHerder wrote:

It’s difficult to have a philosophical discussion on a very serious topic with you Gravel because you seem to be thinking with your emotions, which is why you’re so quick to dismiss antinatalism and then assign importance to trivial events like your first kiss and frogs and sunsets.

We can’t expect too much. Antinatalism is an extremely touchy subject. (Thanks BTW for bringing it up). It’s a philosophy solidly rooted in irrefutable logic that is in direct opposition to the basic natural instinct to procreate. I expect very, very few people will actually ‘get-it’…

You’re welcome, man. I’m glad someone else finds it interesting. And it is definitely touchy, lol.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Branched off wrote:

After all if the worst happens they will only end up dead and that is no worse than not having existed and could be better if they have left issue.

And there again we are back to this being a subjective, individual opinion. Antinatalists feel that existence burdens us with a survival instinct that compels us to continue to endure a miserable life which ends with us suffering (an often painful) death anyway.

Nonexistent would be better. There is no ‘wrong’ in denying a life to someone who doesn’t yet exist to begin with…

[AutoliteParticipant]

SpiderHerder wrote:

You’re welcome, man. I’m glad someone else finds it interesting. And it is definitely touchy.

Learning about Antinatalism is for me a very big deal. Like when I first found out about MGTOW, I had previously thought that I was the only one who felt the way that I did…

[Gravel PitParticipant]

Autolite wrote:

we are back to this being a subjective, individual opinion. Antinatalists feel that existence burdens us

thats fine to have an opinion. A lot of people think Earth is flat, that doesnt mean its true.

Autolite wrote:

There is no ‘wrong’ in denying a life to someone who doesn’t yet exist to begin with…

You cant be judge, jury and executioner for someones life that hasnt even transpired yet. Its immoral.

There is no wrong in it? Actually, YES, there is wrong in it. You’re cutting their cord based on flimsy subjective appraisals of what life is like for YOU.

You prevent suffering AND HAPPINESS from occurring. So your act is not a mercy at all. You applaud yourself for sparing someone possible pain WHILE TOTALLY ROBBING THEM OF ALL JOY. And your excuse for this is that “nonexistence” feels like nothing so no harm no foul. Well, then you cant say its “BETTER” not to have been born, since your view of not being alive is a neutral!

ITS CIRCULAR REASONING

[AutoliteParticipant]

Gravel Pit wrote:

If these dudes are convinced life is sh!t… fine. Waste of my time. theyre Too chickensh!t to kill themselves,

Antinatalism, VHEMT nor Efilism is about ending a life that already exists. This has been pointed out and explained to you ad nauseam. They are all about not procreating to begin with. I really don’t understand why or how you continue to be so obtuse over this simple fact…

[Colin Combover in a ComaParticipant 5082]

I’ve become a parody of both “our John” and Pater.
Which cells exist as the real me…..or is there only a diffused “me”, of which environment/emotions/incidents and the mere chronological chime of the inevitable dictate?

[AutoliteParticipant]

Gravel Pit wrote:

There is no wrong in it? Actually, YES, there is wrong in it.

So get out there and start makin’ babies! Do the right thing! Just think of all those poor souls waiting for you to bring them into existence. Giddy-Up Stud Muffin…

[Gravel PitParticipant]

Do you get that?

They say non-existence is preferable to existing. Yet when challenged on all the pleasure that antinatalism denies the unborn, they say it doesnt matter because they dont know what they missed, but they started with nonexistence being preferable although its clearly not preferable to be robbed of all pleasure.

So which is it? It cant be both. How can non-existence be preferable when there is a total absence of joy? And thus you get these sorts of ERRORS in judgement when you make value statements with no reference.

The whole thing is a JOKE

[Gravel PitParticipant]

differentiate between MACRO human philosophy (objectivity) and MICRO individual experience (subjectivity).

The totally loathsome conditions that exist for any male wanting to start a family today do not support anitnatalism.
That is a logical fallacy too. Its subjective.

[Gravel PitParticipant]

In all fairness, I have been drinking some incredibly powerful coffee every morning. The kind of stuff you buy at Whole Foods.
This has caused obsession obviously. Sorry

[AutoliteParticipant]

Gravel Pit wrote:

They say non-existence is preferable to existing. Yet when challenged on all the pleasure that antinatalism denies the unborn, they say it doesnt matter because they dont know what they missed, but they started with nonexistence being preferable although its clearly not preferable to be robbed of all pleasure.

So which is it? It cant be both. How can non-existence be preferable when there is a total absence of joy?

If you’re being genuine and sincere with your questions, I very strongly suggest that you go back and watch (or re-watch) those linked videos in the previous posts. The questions that you’re asking and the points that you’re attempting to make have already been repeatedly addressed. Either you’ve completely missed what was already explained in those videos or you’re deliberately trying to feign ignorance.

I will assume the former out of respect…

[Colin Combover in a ComaParticipant 5082]

Autolite wrote:

Gravel Pit wrote:

They say non-existence is preferable to existing. Yet when challenged on all the pleasure that antinatalism denies the unborn, they say it doesnt matter because they dont know what they missed, but they started with nonexistence being preferable although its clearly not preferable to be robbed of all pleasure.
So which is it? It cant be both. How can non-existence be preferable when there is a total absence of joy?

If you’re being genuine and sincere with your questions, I very strongly suggest that you go back and watch (or re-watch) those linked videos in the previous posts. The questions that you’re asking and the points that you’re attempting to make have already been repeatedly addressed. Either you missed what was already explained in those videos or you’re deliberately trying to feign ignorance.
I will assume the former out of respect…

My dilemma is more as to whether I desire to live on(in some form) once I transgress this dimension.
To be no more when I am now consciously aware is quite a scary prospect……so is constantly continuing.
A paradox that is one of many in my life.

[Branched offParticipant 11014]

Autolite wrote:

Branched off wrote:

After all if the worst happens they will only end up dead and that is no worse than not having existed and could be better if they have left issue.

And there again we are back to this being a subjective, individual opinion. Antinatalists feel that existence burdens us with a survival instinct that compels us to continue to endure a miserable life which ends with us suffering (an often painful) death anyway.
Nonexistent would be better. There is no ‘wrong’ in denying a life to someone who doesn’t yet exist to begin with…

I agree there is no wrong in denying the unborn life. You have done them no wrong. You have also done them no right either. But they did not exist so it is no biggy.

You might argue you have awarded yourself the Darwin prize and whether or not that is a wrong to you and your ancestors is totally subjective. It could be virtuous in your book and I would not deny you that but it is virtuous in my book to fight for survival of my species to my last breath. I may inherit surviving descendants for my suffering and I may not. You will not. If you didn’t want that after much reflection it was your path and probably the right one for you.

A woman is like fire -fun to play with, can warm you through and cook your food, needs constant feeding, can burn you and consume all you own

[AutoliteParticipant]

Colin Combover in a Coma wrote:

My dilemma is more as to whether I desire to live on(in some form) once I transgress this dimension.
To be no more when I am now consciously aware is quite a scary prospect……so is constantly continuing.
A paradox that is one of many in my life.

When you leave this ‘dimension’ you just return to nonexistence for an eternity. I hope that helps you with your dilemma Colin…

[Branched offParticipant 11014]

I feel it is important that there is a place in MGTOW for both these views. My personal priority is to help men who would like to lead or to have led normal lives as fathers and heads of households but are screwed over by the cuck state. We are stronger as a group and we are all screwed over by the gynocracy so I hope that both positions can be respected by a broad and tolerant MGTOW group.

A woman is like fire -fun to play with, can warm you through and cook your food, needs constant feeding, can burn you and consume all you own

[AutoliteParticipant]

Branched off wrote:

I agree there is no wrong in denying the unborn life. You have done them no wrong. You have also done them no right either. But they did not exist so it is no biggy.

Correct. You cannot ‘wrong’ someone who doesn’t exist. A key point of Antinatalism…

[AutoliteParticipant]

Branched off wrote:

I feel it is important that there is a place in MGTOW for both these views.

Well for us MGTOWs who chose to remain childless, Antinatalism certainly gives us further justification for that choice. As I’ve said a few times, I would have felt guilty had I brought another human into this world…

[Colin Combover in a ComaParticipant 5082]

Autolite wrote:

Colin Combover in a Coma wrote:

My dilemma is more as to whether I desire to live on(in some form) once I transgress this dimension.To be no more when I am now consciously aware is quite a scary prospect……so is constantly continuing.A paradox that is one of many in my life.

When you leave this ‘dimension’ you just return to nonexistence for an eternity. I hope that helps you with your dilemma Colin…

Not really!
I don’t subscribe to atheism.

[AutoliteParticipant]

Colin Combover in a Coma wrote:

Not really!
I don’t subscribe to atheism.

Yeah I know. Spewing the truth is just a ‘due diligence’ thing with me. It’s on you whether or not you accept it…

[Colin Combover in a ComaParticipant 5082]

Autolite wrote:

Colin Combover in a Coma wrote:

Not really!I don’t subscribe to atheism.

Yeah I know. Spewing the truth is just a ‘due diligence’ thing with me. It’s on you whether or not you accept it…

It’s a very bald statement to make. An unequivocal thing…..hmmmm.
Sounds as potent as the Christians/Muslims etc

[Author]

Posts