Having kids is immoral

buddhistking

buddhistking

I dream that the māyā shall end one day
Joined
Jan 12, 2025
Posts
5,796
Reputation
7,738
Anti-natalism is the only truth of this world

Denying is only cope

WE yes YOU and ME would have all been better off if we were never born in the first place and it would be selfish/immoral of us to have kids of our own
 
Last edited:
  • +1
  • Love it
Reactions: optimisticzoomer, ltnbrownacnecel, xlimz and 13 others
Anti-natalism is the only truth of this world

Denying is only cope

WE yes YOU and ME would have all been better off if we weren't born and it would be selfish/immoral of us to have kids of our own
Extremely retarded take
 
  • +1
  • Nerd
Reactions: 3pider, taiga2801, JordanFagget271 and 7 others
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 170084, Shrek2OnDvD, Deleted member 280441 and 1 other person
Ok thats just your opinion
 
  • +1
Reactions: 3pider, MiserableMan, Deleted member 280441 and 3 others
  • +1
Reactions: Zaref, Deleted member 170084, Deleted member 280441 and 3 others
  • +1
Reactions: MiserableMan, Deleted member 280441, IAMNOTANINCEL and 1 other person
only if ur poor or extremely ugly or deformed
 
  • +1
Reactions: MiserableMan, Deleted member 280441 and Elf
If you’re ungrateful for your life doesn’t mean we all are.
It's not about being "greatful" or "ungreatful", you can be greatful for a pile of shit, it doesn't mean it's not a pile of shit, some kid in a third world country may be greatful for a bowl of rice and treat it like it's diamonds and gold, but that doesn't mean that the bowl of rice is actually valuable
 
  • +1
Reactions: Zaref, Deleted member 280441, Deleted member 291098 and 1 other person
It's not about being "greatful" or "ungreatful", you can be greatful for a pile of shit, it doesn't mean it's not a pile of shit, some kid in a third world country may be greatful for a bowl of rice and treat it like it's diamonds and gold, but that doesn't mean that the bowl of rice is actually valuable
Ok, explain how do you quantify the value of life itself
 
  • +1
Reactions: MiserableMan, Deleted member 280441 and perculezz
No, its based on your skewed vision on life.
only if ur poor or extremely ugly or deformed
All humans on this planet suffer and die, literally that is their destiny of all of them, including chad or stacy or whatever you want, humans get at best a life mixed with suffering and pleasure, which does not justify bringing someone new into this world, not to mention that 90% of humans do not even reach a level of a mix between pleasure and suffering, for most of them it's only suffering and not just for some deformed guy
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 291098
All humans on this planet suffer and die, literally that is their destiny of all of them, including chad or stacy or whatever you want, humans get at best a life mixed with suffering and pleasure, which does not justify bringing someone new into this world, not to mention that 90% of humans do not even reach a level of a mix between pleasure and suffering, for most of them it's only suffering and not just for some deformed guy
dnr
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
Anti-natalism is the only truth of this world

Denying is only cope

WE yes YOU and ME would have all been better off if we were never born in the first place and it would be selfish/immoral of us to have kids of our own
i want to create as many kids as possible with the most subhuman foid ever so that they all go ER and all foids go extinct and this shitty species finally goes extinct:lul:
 
  • JFL
  • +1
Reactions: R@m@, MiserableMan, Deleted member 280441 and 1 other person
All humans on this planet suffer and die, literally that is their destiny of all of them, including chad or stacy or whatever you want, humans get at best a life mixed with suffering and pleasure, which does not justify bringing someone new into this world, not to mention that 90% of humans do not even reach a level of a mix between pleasure and suffering, for most of them it's only suffering and not just for some deformed guy
If this was truly the case why is it in our instinct to reproduce ? And do not say this is an appeal to nature fallacy.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
Ok, explain how do you quantify the value of life itself
If you relate it to the alternative aka non-existence (or never being born) then life always comes up short, because you never suffer if you are never born and you are guaranteed to suffer if you are born
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 291098
If this was truly the case why is it in our instinct to reproduce ? And do not say this is an appeal to nature fallacy.
Blud its the same as any other animal, humans are not special, you are put on the earth to survive and reproduce, that doesn't mean it's morally right to do so (reproduce), the universe doesn't care about morals jfl
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 291098
Blud its the same as any other animal, humans are not special, you are put on the earth to survive and reproduce, that doesn't mean it's morally right to do so (reproduce), the universe doesn't care about morals jfl
Morality is something you choose to believe in or are indoctrinated with.
 
  • +1
Reactions: MiserableMan and Deleted member 280441
Morality is something you choose to believe in or are indoctrinated with.
If you don't care about morals that's another thing, but trying to fool yourself like most people do in that you are having kids out of kindness of giving them the "gift of life" is huffing copium
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 291098
If you relate it to the alternative aka non-existence (or never being born) then life always comes up short, because you never suffer if you are never born and you are guaranteed to suffer if you are born
So you say you would rather be nothing than take the chance of being something.
 
  • +1
  • Nerd
Reactions: MiserableMan, Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 291098
Yup I've seen this philosophical stance. We are addicted to life yet we suffer so much from it and continue to procreate because we have to cope in some way or another. The only way to fix this is to never have children.
 
  • +1
Reactions: xlimz, MiserableMan, Deleted member 280441 and 1 other person
So you say you would rather be nothing than take the chance of being something.
1. The chance is small, most people never do anything significant in their lives at all

2. Even if you do become something, you will lose it all and go back to being nothing anyways when you die and ppl will forget about you and it would be like you weren't born in the first place, and don't talk about Albert Einstein or guys like that, these are a few people out of the billions that were born
 
  • +1
Reactions: Kroker, Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 291098
If you don't care about morals that's another thing, but trying to fool yourself like most people do in that you are having kids out of kindness of giving them the "gift of life" is huffing copium
Okay, let’s say we dont use the “gift of life” and I do it for my own pleasure and satisfaction you’d say that I would do exactly what you said initially. But then the argument comes, NOT having kids is also selfish because it satisfies your own desires so it is infact not a selfless act.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
Yup I've seen this philosophical stance. We are addicted to life yet we suffer so much from it and continue to procreate because we have to cope in some way or another. The only way to fix this is to never have children.
The worst part is we put this kind of morality on procreation like it's a good thing or morally noble to be a parent when in reality it's probably one of the most if not the most immoral things you can do
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 291098
Most people that have children have them for a mix of several reasons:

1) Cultural or religious dogma; because everyone else is doing it
2) Purpose in their older years
3) Curbing loneliness
4) Vanity (legacy)
5) A source of income for their later years
6) accidents/boredom

reasons are all over the place. economic conditions made it extremely hard to have a lot of children , the population is shrinking slowly .
 
  • +1
Reactions: R@m@, Kroker, Deleted member 280441 and 1 other person
Keep LDARing boyo while the rest of us slay pussy :feelsyay:
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
Okay, let’s say we dont use the “gift of life” and I do it for my own pleasure and satisfaction you’d say that I would do exactly what you said initially. But then the argument comes, NOT having kids is also selfish because it satisfies your own desires so it is infact not a selfless act.
It actually hurts your desires, because all humans are biologically wired to reproduce, most ppl who die childless are seen as losers and even your body and mental state will suffer naturally from not following your biological goal

You suffer from not reproducing, no way is it not selfless
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
:p
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and StyIix
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
you won't be happy we are bound to our nature, philosophie is cope in some aspects

1766621469984
 
  • +1
Reactions: MiserableMan and Deleted member 280441
Anti-natalism is the only truth of this world

Denying is only cope

WE yes YOU and ME would have all been better off if we were never born in the first place and it would be selfish/immoral of us to have kids of our own
Not to versed on this stance but wouldn’t denying the state of life to a being more morally unjust? It’s a selfish position not allowing said being the opportunity to choose for itself when it’s older. then you atleast give them the opportunity to stay alive or rope.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441, Deleted member 291098 and GonorrhoeaGobbler
Not to versed on this stance but wouldn’t denying the state of life to a being more morally unjust? It’s a selfish position not allowing said being the opportunity to choose for itself when it’s older. then you atleast give them the opportunity to stay alive or rope.
Roping is not the same thing as never being born because people suffer when they rope, people don't suffer when they are never born cus they never want to be born, we force them to be born

So I'm not denying my potential kid anything if he/she is not born, there is no harm, but if I have a kid and he/she ropes then I am doing them a great harm
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 291098
Agreed i see it as quite selfish to bring kids into this sphere of hell.
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 291098
I have a question for you do you believe you can place an objective moral standard on things that aren’t existing? Not having kids can’t be objectively a moral good because something has to be there in the first place for a judgment of morality?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
I have a question for you do you believe you can place an objective moral standard on things that aren’t existing? Not having kids can’t be objectively a moral good because something has to be there in the first place for a judgment of morality?
Think about it like this, its morally good to not build a bomb or not drive drunk or not steal etc, even if the result is nothing happening in its place

Choosing to not create a person avoids harm and risk, that doesnt mean it was necessarily good for the non-existent person to not exist, it means the other option would be for an existing person to suffer, which would be bad
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
So essentially the morality is being placed on the action rather then the theoretical person?
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
Only Chads and Stacys kids matter in this world
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and nsk4ll
So essentially the morality is being placed on the action rather then the theoretical person?
Yes the act of procreating itself is immoral because anti-natalism is focusing on life in this world, not just a hypothetical life of a potential kid, so it also applies to animals and such, but animals dont have the iq to think about this so only humans can be antinatalist
 
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
according to shopenhauercuck maybe
 
  • +1
Reactions: xzylecrey and Deleted member 280441
  • +1
Reactions: xzylecrey, Deleted member 280441 and GonorrhoeaGobbler
according to shopenhauercuck maybe
philosophy is cope when it comes to dualist philosophies (like platonism or cartesianism) or things based on slave morality like stoicism, christianity or buddhism
Greycel ramblings

Why is philosophy and Buddhism cope?
 
  • +1
  • JFL
Reactions: Deleted member 280441 and Deleted member 301477
Greycel ramblings

Why is philosophy and Buddhism cope?
when you can't get or become what you want then you start to cope that you actually don't need it
 
  • +1
Reactions: xzylecrey and Deleted member 280441
when you can't get or become what you want then you start to cope that you actually don't need it
But does that make it not true, like that you do need it?

That's the difference between wanting and needing, so its still the truth

Plus Buddhism argues that even when you get what you want ur still not happy and you still suffer

It's not about if you want shit and don't get it that makes you suffer it's even when you get what you want you still suffer
 
Last edited:
  • +1
Reactions: Deleted member 280441
But does that make it not true, like that you do need it?

That's the difference between wanting and needing, so its still the truth
you just changed the word, the meaning is the same, at least in this context.
and buddhism is not the truth, every dualist philosophy is propaganda including buddhism, if there's an independent from body soul then how does the soul controls the material body, soul has to be material too in this case but it's impossible.
Plus Buddhism argues that even when you get what you want ur still not happy and you still suffer

It's not about if you want shit and don't get it that makes you suffer it's even when you get what you want you still suffer
suffering is not bad
 
you just changed the word, the meaning is the same, at least in this context.
and buddhism is not the truth, every dualist philosophy is propaganda including buddhism, if there's an independent from body soul then how does the soul controls the material body, soul has to be material too in this case but it's impossible.
You have clearly done no research at all, Buddhism is the biggest rejection of a soul and all that shit, ur speaking of Christianity and Islam and Hinduism

Buddhism has consciousness, but that's nothing like a spirit or a soul

suffering is not bad
200
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Jatt
Replies
15
Views
106
StyIix
StyIix
LefortCandidate
Replies
12
Views
93
LefortCandidate
LefortCandidate
P
Replies
6
Views
62
pallasbilli
P
SkiSquadJPG
Replies
146
Views
672
Klasik616
Klasik616
KG4
Replies
6
Views
49
KG4
KG4

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top