thebackalleys

archives => i threw up => Topic started by: Bamyasi on January 23, 2016 12:20 PM

Title: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 23, 2016 12:20 PM
Controversial Threads that Surely Won't Devolve into Shitposting or Public Stoning by This Time Tomorrow - Part Final: Against Nietzsche, Dark Souls

Several Agnostic (in the sense that they aren't Gnostic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism)) philosophers in recent history have argued in favor of Antinatalism:
There are also edgy environmentalist organizations like VHEMT (http://www.vhemt.org) and the Church of Euthanasia (http://www.churchofeuthanasia.org). Even though I subscribe to deep ecology, I don't find their arguments compelling in the face of the prevailing normative anthropocentrism. Broader, less ideological movements like Childfree (http://www.childfree.net) also exist, but many times followers espouse intense misopedia. Dyed-in-the-wool Antinatalists often profess extreme compassion for children, which I find much more tenable.

There are also internet edgelords like inmendham, but they can be safely ignored for the most part:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bK2a-1K0Sdg)

A good primer on Antinatalism and philosophical pessimism in general for those interested is Thomas Ligotti's The Conspiracy Against the Human Race (http://www.amazon.com/Conspiracy-against-Human-Race-Contrivance-ebook/dp/B008EENBZU/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=1453563670&sr=1-1) (2010), which a lot of people found out about through that fuck awful HBO series True Detective, as the writer admitted its influence. I don't agree with his reasoning sum total, but it's always entertaining to read someone as passionately horrified by consciousness and existence as Ligotti, even if they're better at spinning yarns than changing minds.

If I find Antinatalist arguments compelling though, it's not because of misanthropy (which is a common argument). I actually care deeply about humanity and find life excruciatingly beautiful at times. My decision to not reproduce arrived independently of my reading Antinatalist texts, but they did codify my ethical and pragmatic concerns. I simply don't think it's right to impose any existence onto another person, when by nature that existence will contain suffering. Even if the suffering can be redeemed through catharsis (which mine often is), one of the more damning tenets of the pessimism in question is that most any pleasure is contingent on the suffering of another (I sure enjoy typing on my computer thanks to Chinese sweatshop workers, who in turn must thank child laborers in Africa, and so forth). Personally, I think all it takes is one look at the forecast to see that making a person isn't in their best interest: rampant, unchecked procreative liberty is making (http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan/) the (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-35173709) planet (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2015/12/30/freak-storm-has-pushed-north-pole-to-freezing-point-50-degrees-above-normal/?tid=sm_fb) uninhabitable (http://tinyurl.com/bs6oojv).

That's not to say ethical considerations govern my every action, but they would certainly weigh in my decision to kill somebody, which giving birth is analogous to. When someone is accused of murder, the court wants to know the Why, When, Where, How, etc. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justifiable_homicide) Shouldn't we give similar considerations to the act of reproducing? Even if one doesn't subscribe to Antinatalism in full, the potential effects of regulating birth are astronomical. Maybe gun violence and crime in general wouldn't be such a problem if fatherless homes/weak fathers were less of one? Of course some code of eugenics would naturally arise from this, but why not? There's certainly a short term moral imperative, to, at the very least, avert the potential suffering of children born by parents with profoundly debilitating hereditary diseases[1] (http://www.webcitation.org/6WymEgR7t). The decision not to procreate is, for me, in part a eugenic one, and I expect others to adopt this position (or, at the very least, adopt children), or be given more incentives to do so if they just really don't give a fuck about the people their making (which I don't think most parents do deep down, aside from the fucks put in them by genes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection), dreams (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism) and memes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity)).

(click to show/hide)

The End.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHuRBuiL4Bc (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHuRBuiL4Bc)

This has been a general appeal for our surrender to entropy.

inb4 edgy.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: SHADOWFOX2 on January 23, 2016 12:26 PM
Yeah sure why not?
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: valiums on January 23, 2016 12:27 PM
Is there any major antinat stuff written by women?
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 23, 2016 12:48 PM
Is there any major antinat stuff written by women?
There's this (http://www.amazon.com/Every-Cradle-Grave-Rethinking-Suicide/dp/0989697290/), which I've heard is good but still need to read.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: SrsSam77 on January 23, 2016 01:03 PM
Humanities existance is a dickslap to the face of the natural world and no matter how much it will put us through we won't stop until we bend the universe over and fuck her in her black hole, get rekt antinat/nihilist fags.

Sincerely though life is a struggle but if you're so much of a cuck as to want all of humanity to give up you need to a)donate all of your shit to a local orphanage and b) kill yourself
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 23, 2016 01:31 PM
Humanities existance
(http://www.thebackalleys.com/dump/files/1530/5358Jt_whatthefuckamireading.jpg)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: valiums on January 23, 2016 01:54 PM
Some of this stuff I'm finding ties into the radfemmy writings I've been reading lately in the most depressing way. In multiple ways, in fact, some of them being opposites. Like fuck, this is going to take a month to process.


Is there any part of this group/movement that wants to include all of life in this fun discussion? I'm seeing a lot of environmentalisty animalloverly "humans sux" shit.  It seems hypocritical and a waste to say living as a human is awful so choose not to have babies and an hero for good measure, and then to exit without killing everything else that can't make the same choice. There's got to be an extremist branch of this lot in there somewhere.

(https://avvesione.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/chihayafuru-09-kana-exhausted-tired-crazy.jpg)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 23, 2016 01:59 PM
radfemmy writings

valerie solanas manifesto the best
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: zwimmy on January 23, 2016 02:20 PM
yes please just fucking end it
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 23, 2016 02:28 PM
Is there any part of this group/movement that wants to include all of life in this fun discussion? I'm seeing a lot of environmentalisty animalloverly "humans sux" shit.  It seems hypocritical and a waste to say living as a human is awful so choose not to have babies and an hero for good measure, and then to exit without killing everything else that can't make the same choice. There's got to be an extremist branch of this lot in there somewhere.
Yeah, that youtube guy inmendham founded a philosophy called Efilism (life backwards, get it?), which is basically what you're talking about. I don't really know much about it, but the guys made like thousands of youtube videos and has a small dedicated following. He's also insane.

You're right that a lot AN people are vegan "I would get eaten by a bear to save the bear" nutjobs, but the works I listed don't hold environmentalist goals as the principle concern, just an ancillary benefit.

Cioran has a good aphorism refuting the suicide argument Sam so enthusiastically graced us with:

Quote from: On the Heights of Despair
Only optimists commit suicide, optimists who no longer succeed at being optimists. The others, having no reason to live, why would they have any to die?
The other guys have similar rebuttals, though none dismiss it outright.

What parallels are you seeing with feminism?
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: valiums on January 23, 2016 03:18 PM
I've seen some inmendham vids (mostly his economic ramblings) but I never got into his "Efilism" stuff (10/10 name). Happy to see there is indeed a far-out section, and it's fucking HIM. HAHAHA.

I'm going to try to write up a proper thing with links and quotes et cet to convey my thoughts later, cause it's all connections and no argument or substance at this point.



valerie solanas manifesto the best

Quote
Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to loudly teach the men antinatalism here, quietly resume parthenogenesis elsewhere, and wait.

(http://www.thebackalleys.com/dump/files/1401/535s9Z_Insan%20Jaag%20Utha%20%281959%29%202.gif)
(http://www.thebackalleys.com/dump/files/1401/757Y0o_Insan%20Jaag%20Utha%20%281959%29%203.gif)


Fucking loool.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: crackers on January 26, 2016 03:23 AM
isn't this just the fall of Rome
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: crackers on January 26, 2016 03:23 AM
sorry didn't mean to post that here ,  that message was for my dad .
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: rtil on January 26, 2016 04:22 AM
I simply don't think it's right to impose any existence onto another person
i agree with this sentiment, not because i regret being born or anything but because of how unsure i am about our ultimate fate i wouldn't want to also impose that question on someone i was partly responsible for bringing into this world
Quote
The decision not to procreate is, for me, in part a eugenic one, and I expect others to adopt this position (or, at the very least, adopt children), or be given more incentives to do so if they just really don't give a fuck about the people their making
adopt the position on the basis of eugenics? somehow i doubt it, but there are definitely less people in developed nations having children for a multitude of reasons. most of them are selfish, but i don't think there's anything wrong with being selfish. and the world is already overpopulated in terms of sustainability imo
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 26, 2016 07:47 AM
I'm going to try to write up a proper thing with links and quotes et cet to convey my thoughts later
Still looking forward to this also is that movie good?

isn't this just the fall of Rome
More or less, but decreased fruitfulness is only one parallel the contemporary western world has with the late Roman Empire. You also have to factor in mass immigration, economic collapses, reliance on cheap (slave) labor, overexpansion of manufacturing and military overspending (by America mainly), governmental corruption, and the weakening of traditional values (decadence, which Spengler always denoted as a tell-tale sign of an empire in decline).

i agree with this sentiment, not because i regret being born or anything but because of how unsure i am about our ultimate fate i wouldn't want to also impose that question on someone i was partly responsible for bringing into this world
My thoughts exactly, except the regret part. One day working at UPS was enough to make me regret that (I jest).

adopt the position on the basis of eugenics? somehow i doubt it, but there are definitely less people in developed nations having children for a multitude of reasons. most of them are selfish, but i don't think there's anything wrong with being selfish. and the world is already overpopulated in terms of sustainability imo
I think if people took the suffering inflicted upon them by the genetic lottery, like hereditary diseases and such, seriously, they wouldn't procreate outside a "designer child" scenario. I'm not completely sold on the AN position but I did inherit enough bad genes to know not to pass them on if there's a chance they could be expressed. Maybe eugenics isn't the right word.

Agreed about the selfish part. AN thinking would deem those people to be in fact far less selfish than those procreating, which I also agree with, especially with environmental factors. A major problem imo is parents in those same developing nations waiting until the tail end of fertility, or even longer with oocyte cryopreservation (egg freezing), before having children. Technology is progressing (or at least obsolescing) so fast that the generation gap even between people born two or three years apart is significant. I don't think the psychological harm inflicted on a child whose parent, for all intents and purposes, was born in the stone age, is negligible, when their (the parents') ability to help their child navigate the socio-economic landscape is diminished significantly. People want to have their career cake and eat their children too. I think they should have to choose.

Speaking of which, does anyone else think parenthood should be a licensed profession? I agree with crazy Canadian youtube cult philosopher king here:

Quote from: Stefan Molyneux
Deep down, I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 26, 2016 09:53 AM
Far be it from me to decide how any man uses his penis to best effect. I see no problem with fellows joining together in merry union, nor with them befriending the boys and making good pederasty. But whither the egg? While the sperms fly and mingle gaily in the air, should it be left to sour in the womb? Can such a thing stand in perpetua? I think we need to rethink our priorities here.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: basketweaver on January 26, 2016 10:27 AM
Antinatalism

nice, i've been trying to find a word for this concept for a while. i've been thinking about this ever since i got into buddhism, since it's pretty shitty to give birth to a creature that will necessarily feel suffering throughout its existence. this epic meme sums up my current opinion on the matter:

(http://i.imgur.com/Y7eXxnn.png)

will provide a more articulate opinion later
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 26, 2016 12:09 PM
Schopenhauer was highly influenced by Buddhism. TWAWAR really helps with reading Nietzsche, who a lot of people say's work was in large part a response to.

will provide a more articulate opinion later
I look forward to it.

Also did you make that comic?

Far be it from me to decide how any man uses his penis to best effect. I see no problem with fellows joining together in merry union, nor with them befriending the boys and making good pederasty. But whither the egg? While the sperms fly and mingle gaily in the air, should it be left to sour in the womb? Can such a thing stand in perpetua? I think we need to rethink our priorities here.
Is this a snowclone? It sounds vaguely familiar.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: d-floe on January 26, 2016 12:12 PM
i didnt ask to be alive so fuck it why not
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: rtil on January 26, 2016 02:28 PM
I think if people took the suffering inflicted upon them by the genetic lottery, like hereditary diseases and such, seriously, they wouldn't procreate outside a "designer child" scenario. I'm not completely sold on the AN position but I did inherit enough bad genes to know not to pass them on if there's a chance they could be expressed. Maybe eugenics isn't the right word.
i have heard of abstaining from procreation partly for reasons due to bad genetics, and also heard of people getting abortions after finding out their child will/most likely suffer from some kind of terrible disease or syndrome through ultrasound or however they do this now instead of bringing the child to term and willingly allow it to suffer which i find absolutely disgusting. it's one thing not knowing, but knowing your child will inescapably suffer, never have the same opportunities you did, and possibly live that way for many years is worse than negligence.

[/quote]
Agreed about the selfish part. AN thinking would deem those people to be in fact far less selfish than those procreating, which I also agree with, especially with environmental factors. A major problem imo is parents in those same developing nations waiting until the tail end of fertility, or even longer with oocyte cryopreservation (egg freezing), before having children. Technology is progressing (or at least obsolescing) so fast that the generation gap even between people born two or three years apart is significant. I don't think the psychological harm inflicted on a child whose parent, for all intents and purposes, was born in the stone age, is negligible, when their (the parents') ability to help their child navigate the socio-economic landscape is diminished significantly. People want to have their career cake and eat their children too. I think they should have to choose.[/quote]
it's a unique time that we live in that this is happening, but you and i passed that generational gap in some sense if we were to hypothetically have children. even though we aren't necessarily savvy to the lingo and zeitgeist of your average 12 year old, we do use the same technology and we're better at it, too. because we grew up with it rapidly changing before our eyes we had the benefit of being forced to quickly re-learn what we knew while at the same time being in a situation where we were forced to fix things on our own because our parents grew up with typewriters instead of computers.

i've noticed most people around 10+ years younger than myself, while glued to their phones and any piece of technology they can get their hands on that allows them to socialize and waste time, have the basic instinct of taking something to the Geek Squad the second it "breaks". basically they've grown up in an era of technology where the internals seemed off limits and never bothered. they're good at adopting but not at adapting. but this is way off topic.

Quote
Speaking of which, does anyone else think parenthood should be a licensed profession? I agree with crazy Canadian youtube cult philosopher king here:

Quote from: Stefan Molyneux
Deep down, I do not believe that there are any really good parents out there - the same way that I do not believe there were any really good doctors in the 10th century.
sometimes i wonder what things would be like if there was some kind of required training for parenthood before or after the pregnancy. but that implies that you could fail the test, the qualifications of the test are somewhat arbitrary, and the introduction of the test is a form of eugenics.

deciding what goes on the test/how you qualify would be really difficult to pin down. if i was to put one together i'd try to do it from a purely utilitarian viewpoint - asking the potential parents questions about their daily life, workload, income, then showing how much the child will cost you and what you'll have to change in order to afford the child or if they even can. basically trying to do everything to convince the couple to not have a child if it appears that doing so would diminish the quality of life of both the parents and the child.

but if they wanted to still have one anyway i wouldn't try to stop them. just thinking about eugenics makes me feel like a redditor
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 26, 2016 02:49 PM
its good that mother nature can clean up her own mess (like the copious behavioral sinks and dead-end cultures of the west) before nuclear warfare takes the planet down with it
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 26, 2016 07:27 PM
i have heard of abstaining from procreation partly for reasons due to bad genetics, and also heard of people getting abortions after finding out their child will/most likely suffer from some kind of terrible disease or syndrome through ultrasound or however they do this now instead of bringing the child to term and willingly allow it to suffer which i find
(http://www.thebackalleys.com/dump/files/1530/3085eZ_nabarel_absolutely_disgusting.jpg)
it's one thing not knowing, but knowing your child will inescapably suffer, never have the same opportunities you did, and possibly live that way for many years is worse than negligence.
Agreed. One of my friends in middle school had two siblings on either side with cystic fibrosis, which imo is just as bad, even if they couldn't screen for it when the second was born. She was a lovely girl, but the fact that her parents were such utter fuckwads made me fucking sick. People like that need to be sterilized.

it's a unique time that we live in that this is happening, but you and i passed that generational gap in some sense if we were to hypothetically have children. even though we aren't necessarily savvy to the lingo and zeitgeist of your average 12 year old, we do use the same technology and we're better at it, too. because we grew up with it rapidly changing before our eyes we had the benefit of being forced to quickly re-learn what we knew while at the same time being in a situation where we were forced to fix things on our own because our parents grew up with typewriters instead of computers.

i've noticed most people around 10+ years younger than myself, while glued to their phones and any piece of technology they can get their hands on that allows them to socialize and waste time, have the basic instinct of taking something to the Geek Squad the second it "breaks". basically they've grown up in an era of technology where the internals seemed off limits and never bothered. they're good at adopting but not at adapting. but this is way off topic.
I never thought of it this way actually, that people closer to our age, not "digital natives" or whatever, might be better at troubleshooting. It seems like a side effect of Apple making everything so "streamlined" and "user friendly" that most of the population thinks their iPhone runs on mana. Kind of sad when you think about it, but you're right.

sometimes i wonder what things would be like if there was some kind of required training for parenthood before or after the pregnancy. but that implies that you could fail the test, the qualifications of the test are somewhat arbitrary, and the introduction of the test is a form of eugenics.

deciding what goes on the test/how you qualify would be really difficult to pin down. if i was to put one together i'd try to do it from a purely utilitarian viewpoint - asking the potential parents questions about their daily life, workload, income, then showing how much the child will cost you and what you'll have to change in order to afford the child or if they even can. basically trying to do everything to convince the couple to not have a child if it appears that doing so would diminish the quality of life of both the parents and the child.

but if they wanted to still have one anyway i wouldn't try to stop them. just thinking about eugenics makes me feel like a redditor
Yeah I think at least some preliminary instruction for parents would be reasonable. You have to take lessons before getting your driver's license and raising a kid is just as dangerous (in that you can only fuck up once really bad before someone gets hurt or dies).

I do think there's a science to good parenting however, and I really, really dislike the "celebrating diversity" when it comes to styles of child rearing. "I spank my kids" vs. "I don't spank my kids" really just comes down to one of them being an abusive megalomaniac, no ifs ands or buts (pun intended). There definitely needs to be more incentives not to have children though, but sugar daddy Washington isn't helping at all. I guess as long as we keep pumping out taxpayers, they're happy to support them.

I have somewhat mixed feelings about eugenics but yeah it would be difficult to regulate. If people want to have children they'd still do it illegally, just like abortions. Maybe if we payed people to sneak down the chimney and swap out the stupid ugly fetus with a bright and beautiful one, but even then I think parents having children they are vastly dumber than is borderline child abuse. Not to mention this would be just as much a feminist issue as abortion.

Fuck.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: michaell on January 27, 2016 07:08 AM
i knew some very decent people with disabilities and i wonder if they also thought they shouldnt have been born
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: michaell on January 27, 2016 07:17 AM
I simply don't think it's right to impose any existence onto another person
i agree with this sentiment, not because i regret being born or anything but because of how unsure i am about our ultimate fate i wouldn't want to also impose that question on someone i was partly responsible for bringing into this world
Quote
The decision not to procreate is, for me, in part a eugenic one, and I expect others to adopt this position (or, at the very least, adopt children), or be given more incentives to do so if they just really don't give a fuck about the people their making
adopt the position on the basis of eugenics? somehow i doubt it, but there are definitely less people in developed nations having children for a multitude of reasons. most of them are selfish, but i don't think there's anything wrong with being selfish. and the world is already overpopulated in terms of sustainability imo

this overpopulation talk is really fucking stupid

it depends WHERE

in europe we have negative demographic growth rate and the number of detrimental, mostly economic, consequences it brings about strains credulity

im sure it has to do with abortion like in ukraine

2 million abortions every year or something

and for now they have like

1,5 million people born every year
2 million dying every day

AND THATS 4 MILLION PEOPLE DYING

why are ukrainians so braindead???????


Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 27, 2016 08:02 AM
i knew some very decent people with disabilities and i wonder if they also thought they shouldnt have been born
Same here. I think there's a difference between accepting your circumstances and inflicting them on another person though. I see knowingly giving birth to a severely disabled child as a form of violence. Sure, disability rights activists will argue blindness, deafness, etc. are only "afflictions" so far as society cannot accommodate them, i.e. they're socially constructed, which I agree with, but it's also just reality. There are communities of deaf people out there who are so prideful of their condition that they'd take measures to have a child like themselves (https://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/mar/09/genetics.medicalresearch), which is disgusting and pure narcissism.

WHERE
Mainly First World and developing countries, if we're talking about resource and energy consumption.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 27, 2016 10:49 AM
disgusting and pure narcissism.

https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree (https://www.reddit.com/r/childfree)

u don't know the meaning of the words til u look here
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 27, 2016 10:53 AM
Well at least they're not breeding. Intentions shouldn't matter, their narcissism will die with them, cold and alone.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 27, 2016 10:54 AM
Well at least they're not breeding.

truth (who the fuck would want these neotenous dorks as parents)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: rtil on January 27, 2016 03:47 PM
I simply don't think it's right to impose any existence onto another person
i agree with this sentiment, not because i regret being born or anything but because of how unsure i am about our ultimate fate i wouldn't want to also impose that question on someone i was partly responsible for bringing into this world
Quote
The decision not to procreate is, for me, in part a eugenic one, and I expect others to adopt this position (or, at the very least, adopt children), or be given more incentives to do so if they just really don't give a fuck about the people their making
adopt the position on the basis of eugenics? somehow i doubt it, but there are definitely less people in developed nations having children for a multitude of reasons. most of them are selfish, but i don't think there's anything wrong with being selfish. and the world is already overpopulated in terms of sustainability imo

this overpopulation talk is really fucking stupid

it depends WHERE

in europe we have negative demographic growth rate and the number of detrimental, mostly economic, consequences it brings about strains credulity

im sure it has to do with abortion like in ukraine

2 million abortions every year or something

and for now they have like

1,5 million people born every year
2 million dying every day

AND THATS 4 MILLION PEOPLE DYING

why are ukrainians so braindead???????



of course it depends where. obviously from your eurocentric shithole point of view yes there are countries with negative birthrates, but i'm talking about the global demographic trend. most models put us at around 9bn by 2050, while we already have massive logistical problems when it comes to feeding and caring for the 7 or so bn we have now.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 27, 2016 03:58 PM
The few White Americans capable of taking real action against the current situation are those who have undergone tours of duty in Iraq, Afghanistan and the Gulf, special forces men, marine corps, some of the army. They are too small in number and too many find jobs as security, cops, mercenaries and other fields that let them carry and shoot guns. They'll take out their aggression on pot smokers, the poor, vibrants and in the case of the men who really want to kill people... their lust for blood is channeled onto strangers half the globe away.

Hitler dismantled the Jewish hegemony in Germany because WWI gave him a ready pool of battle-hardened men who enjoyed taking orders and smashing skulls but weren't given a meaningful role to play in post-war Germany. America's young whites aren't of the same of background or in the same tough spot.

ZOG will be destroyed when most of the demographic is non-White and thus unproductive and no longer a good host for the Jewish parasite. There will be no sudden explosion right there and then, the USA will just appear the same as any other mostly ethnically murky nation in the Americas -- poor quality economy, law enforcement, services, leadership, everything. The young whites who should have brought down the hammer putting the marxists, feminists, coloreds, and LGBTs into their well deserved graves will blow their lives in confusion and nostalgically complaining that "Life sucks, everything is crap nowadays and just gets worse." and they won't even have the courage or common sense to point out the Jew.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: michaell on January 27, 2016 04:05 PM
I simply don't think it's right to impose any existence onto another person
i agree with this sentiment, not because i regret being born or anything but because of how unsure i am about our ultimate fate i wouldn't want to also impose that question on someone i was partly responsible for bringing into this world
Quote
The decision not to procreate is, for me, in part a eugenic one, and I expect others to adopt this position (or, at the very least, adopt children), or be given more incentives to do so if they just really don't give a fuck about the people their making
adopt the position on the basis of eugenics? somehow i doubt it, but there are definitely less people in developed nations having children for a multitude of reasons. most of them are selfish, but i don't think there's anything wrong with being selfish. and the world is already overpopulated in terms of sustainability imo

this overpopulation talk is really fucking stupid

it depends WHERE

in europe we have negative demographic growth rate and the number of detrimental, mostly economic, consequences it brings about strains credulity

im sure it has to do with abortion like in ukraine

2 million abortions every year or something

and for now they have like

1,5 million people born every year
2 million dying every day

AND THATS 4 MILLION PEOPLE DYING

why are ukrainians so braindead???????



of course it depends where. obviously from your eurocentric shithole point of view yes there are countries with negative birthrates, but i'm talking about the global demographic trend. most models put us at around 9bn by 2050, while we already have massive logistical problems when it comes to feeding and caring for the 7 or so bn we have now.

so what

its their problem not ours, europe is the most important alright

plus theres lotsa food and other resources in the world its all about redistribution that there is something amiss about

when your averange congolese boy goes to the black market he prefers to buy an ak47 to a box of eggs lets face the truth
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: michaell on January 27, 2016 04:06 PM
like

come on

why would i. why would you. why would anyone care about those people. fuck those people! im all about local problems!
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: rtil on January 27, 2016 04:24 PM
I simply don't think it's right to impose any existence onto another person
i agree with this sentiment, not because i regret being born or anything but because of how unsure i am about our ultimate fate i wouldn't want to also impose that question on someone i was partly responsible for bringing into this world
Quote
The decision not to procreate is, for me, in part a eugenic one, and I expect others to adopt this position (or, at the very least, adopt children), or be given more incentives to do so if they just really don't give a fuck about the people their making
adopt the position on the basis of eugenics? somehow i doubt it, but there are definitely less people in developed nations having children for a multitude of reasons. most of them are selfish, but i don't think there's anything wrong with being selfish. and the world is already overpopulated in terms of sustainability imo

this overpopulation talk is really fucking stupid

it depends WHERE

in europe we have negative demographic growth rate and the number of detrimental, mostly economic, consequences it brings about strains credulity

im sure it has to do with abortion like in ukraine

2 million abortions every year or something

and for now they have like

1,5 million people born every year
2 million dying every day

AND THATS 4 MILLION PEOPLE DYING

why are ukrainians so braindead???????



of course it depends where. obviously from your eurocentric shithole point of view yes there are countries with negative birthrates, but i'm talking about the global demographic trend. most models put us at around 9bn by 2050, while we already have massive logistical problems when it comes to feeding and caring for the 7 or so bn we have now.

so what

its their problem not ours, europe is the most important alright

plus theres lotsa food and other resources in the world its all about redistribution that there is something amiss about

when your averange congolese boy goes to the black market he prefers to buy an ak47 to a box of eggs lets face the truth

that's why i said the problem is logistics-based not resource-based. there is plenty of food and medicine for the world, but a lot of it gets wasted
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: basketweaver on January 27, 2016 10:13 PM
Quote
Broader, less ideological movements like Childfree also exist, but many times followers espouse intense misopedia.

I totally agree, fuck those guys. As someone else mentioned earlier ITT, the level of narcissism is unreal.

I think one curious thing about this antinatalist argument is that you're making the entire decision off of the worst case scenario. Can't someone just argue the reverse? I think this is where the argument just reduces down to fundamentally faith-based ideas about the nature of life. What if I wanted to say that, because the highest parts of life are so beautiful, good people (NB: bad people need not apply) should have more children so that they can experience the wonders of living? I mean, there are many schools of thinking (Buddhism and Christianity come to mind) which argue that intense suffering is actually beneficial and conduce to becoming enlightened and living the best possible life.

I think that you basically just have to evaluate whether a given birth is good or bad on a case-by-case basis, looking at the parents' moral quality, genetic health, circumstances, personalities, etc. I don't think that there's an absolute rule at all.

Quote
most any pleasure is contingent on the suffering of another

I'm not sure if I really agree with this. What if I just meditate in my room for 30 minutes and unlock true happiness? I think you can definitely create happiness-utility from thin air.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 27, 2016 11:45 PM
Oh yeah I mean life definitely isn't all bad, just mostly bad, all things considered. Not even my life just life in general. I think Benatar's asymmetry largely responds to what you're talking about:
Quote
most any pleasure is contingent on the suffering of another
I'm not sure if I really agree with this. What if I just meditate in my room for 30 minutes and unlock true happiness? I think you can definitely create happiness-utility from thin air.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pID5aH-mzo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pID5aH-mzo)

(I don't necessarily know enough about meditation or eastern religions to agree with U. G. I just think he's interesting.)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 28, 2016 06:16 AM
too bad none of this chat will never matter because ppl in the third world are shitting out dozens of babies into the most appalling life circumstances imaginable and don't care about how "ethical it is to bring another life into this crazy world!!" (lol) and there's nothing u can do about it unless (http://i.imgur.com/WZM2BVP.png) decides to step up his drone strike game
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: crackers on January 28, 2016 08:02 AM
is almost every single post here satire, cause otherwise most of you are lacking empathy to the point of being psychopaths. I can't believe eugenics was even brought up semi-seriously.

What gives one life the right to take away another's? Intelligence? True intelligence would be recognising that said right shouldn't belong in our civilised society. Pfft
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 28, 2016 11:39 AM
Well I consider eugenics to be the more empathetic position, certainly more than allowing people with horrific diseases like osteogenesis imperfecta (http://www.webcitation.org/6WymEgR7t) to pass them on to their offspring. In my opinion the parents of those people are the violent psychopaths.

I understand though because its pretty much impossible to talk about eugenics rationally due to Nazism, etc.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: crackers on January 28, 2016 06:13 PM
pffft
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 28, 2016 06:25 PM
Literally cannot argue with that.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: valiums on January 29, 2016 11:56 AM
beautiful crackers too good for this thread, too pure




And I guess I'm not posting the links thing cause that would involve re-reading most everything I've already read and wow I'm not doing that in less than a few months lmao. Sorry, I got too excited and jumped the gun there.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on January 29, 2016 12:41 PM
The gist would suffice, if you're so compelled.

Also yes I want to protect his smile.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: michaell on January 29, 2016 03:42 PM
Fredrick Brennan, affectionately known by his minions as “Hotwheels,” is the founder and boss of 8chan, which is the best of all chans. He is a hardcore idealist supporter of the principles of free speech, and his site is an embodiment of this belief.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 29, 2016 03:52 PM
What gives one life the right to take away another's? Intelligence?

yes -- this is how we farm animals for meat and i doubt ur a vegan

skip to 8:30 of this vid for some nifty insights

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxxATDKcLz0 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxxATDKcLz0)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: crackers on January 30, 2016 01:08 AM
yes a human life, with all the nuances of understanding that it's capable of, is surely comparable to a farm animal yes, yes of course. I am such a hypocrite
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 30, 2016 11:23 AM
tons of ppl practiced cannibalism in the olden days though and with the logistical problems rtil talked about it might make a glorious return yet

can't wait for stewed bum with a side of dead children (http://i.imgur.com/euyCe5J.gif)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on January 30, 2016 11:24 AM
also this thread owns gj bam
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: basketweaver on February 3, 2016 09:33 PM
Oh hey, I found out that Julius Evola said that you shouldn't have children because the sacred and true family structure doesn't exist in the modern world

p. interesting
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: SrsSam77 on February 3, 2016 10:00 PM
Oh hey, I found out that Julius Evola said that you shouldn't have children because the sacred and true family structure doesn't exist in the modern world

p. interesting

that's why we have to bring it back

gas the degenerates familial values war N O W
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on February 3, 2016 10:47 PM
sacred and true family structure
How did he define this? I think it's a better argument against polyamory honestly. Sure parental responsibilities once belonged to the tribe but those no longer exists either (in the pre-modern sense).

What do you guys think of the Neo-Reactionary/Dark Enlightenment movement? That, Accelerationism and Speculative Realism are the most interesting contemporary schools imo.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on February 3, 2016 11:03 PM
cook and devour poors college students and old rich boomers because they are ugly and useless
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Stu4U on February 4, 2016 12:34 AM
how does this thread have 3 pages
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on February 4, 2016 01:24 AM
Some of us enjoy discussing things most people take for granted I guess.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Philip K Dick on February 4, 2016 07:17 PM
Some of us enjoy discussing things most people take for granted I guess.

i gotta say your threads are a refreshing change of pace for this forum.
it is easy for communities like tba to devolve into the kind of detached, self-indulgent circlejerk where any kind of meaningful discussion is aloofly dismissed.
AND EVEN THOUGH a lot of the debate happening in this thread is pointlessly hostile... there is a legitimately interesting discussion buried underneath all that internetty-ness
thanks bambino
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: squf on February 11, 2016 04:22 PM
sup, names grinachi or whatever that old tba meme was i can't remember.

I re-registered here despite the, um, colorful past between myself and this forum specifically to post ITT.

I think my former account actually included the punchline of the "Wisdom of Silenus" quote in its signature, maybe rtil can confirm, it doesn't really matter though. This is of course the most beautiful of all possible Antinatalist prose, leaving this thread sorely underdeveloped as a result of its omission.

Quote from: Wisdom of Silenus
“You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: ‘you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.’ It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living.”

When I was a younger lad, my favorite part of the passage was this; "but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can." Particularly the juxtaposition of one shitty scenario with an even shittier one. I reveled in it, it was delightful for me. I felt wiser by my having knowledge of it, for it seemed the ultimate answer to all of life's problems and inconsistencies. People are starving to death in Africa while I sit with plenty for naught but my good fortune to be born into an American family? This doesn't matter, we all ought not to exist at any rate. I suspect Bamyasi of being in at least a somewhat similar state of mind -- though probably more refined.

But.

Now, with the addition of a mere four or so years of age, I have an entirely new perspective. This bit actually relates to the on-going discussion, so thank you for bearing with me through the preamble.

"if choice we have"

Bamyasi's position hinges on that choice being made by Bamyasi (I'm not sure if you're a man or a woman or some Tumblr poster who doesn't believe in gender, so I'll call you Bamyasi, or probably henceforth, OP) -- since obviously the currently unborn haven't really developed decision making yet. Or fingers. Or much of anything really. But I digress. Whether or not OP is capable of admitting; understanding, believing, or even grokking it -- there exist people for whom suffering is not the greatest ill of existence. Most of OP's Antinatalism seems to emphasize suffering explicitly, while cozily ignoring the oft-repeated mantra that without pain, we cannot know happiness.

I'm not a Buddhist, because I'm Occidental. However, I suspect that Buddhism is very concerned with karmic balancing, is it not? Again, I am entirely ignorant of Buddhist thought, but this already seems like a massive hole in justifying your W.E.I.R.D guilt-trip fantasies with the mystical Orient, and her beautiful forms. Just be honest here, the only reason somebody would support Antinatalism is because of a deep desire to destroy themselves, and possibly the entire civilization which produced them, if only they had the button. This I believe is best topically summed up in rtil's poignant words -- eurocentric shithole.

Everybody here knows that you will not convince Africans, Mexicans, even Tibetans to adopt Antinatalism. Only the truly W.E.I.R.D are gripped by such dead end thoughts. As far as convincing Westerners to adopt it, well, we already have. michaell brought up good points about European replacement rates but I guess that's just crap spewed forth from his eurocentric shithole, so, probably not important. Best to just sweep that under the rug, we've got serious discussion to attend to here folks. Yeah, its much more important to say you don't want to even think about eugenics because, ew, reddit -- meanwhile supporting Planned Parenthood and abortions (eugenics, mostly affecting the precious African American cohort btw, who are superior due to their lack of eurocentrism).

SrsSam77 already demolished this thread in the fifth post, proving that old FYAD adage correct yet again. However, his brilliant work was met with softcore hentai, and a general malaise... shame on you OP! Shame! As I swear I'm getting to a point here, eventually, I'm connecting SrsSam77's post back to my earlier aside as follows.

"if choice we have"

We as currently living beings have no choice. We were put here by our, presumably, loving parents, who also must've had good reasons one would hope. You can bemoan this fact; spend decades going into insane levels of detail about it, make philosophical and ethical arguments against it, but here we are. OP's only choice to make at this point is whether or not to continue the cycle. OP, the individual. OP, the single living person. OP, the easily quantifiable; accountable, numerable entity. The point we are all well to aware of is that, as individuals, our choice... to breed, or not to breed... is not much of a question.

It only matters when it has the effect on a national scale, as so eurocentrically pointed out by michaell, of course.

You can protest.

But you can not break the cycle.

The engine of suffering which drives man will jettison our genes across this galaxy someday.

Antinatalism will be scattered to the winds; as will Feminism, Egalitarianism, Liberalism, and all the rest of the suicide cults seeking the destruction of the Occident.

The White Man is the most in touch with Gnon, and he demands suffering, for his dark and terrible work remains incomplete without it.

Rome was built on the raped wombs of the suffering Sabine women. The Netherlands on the exploited Indonesians. America? Why, just crack open some Zinn or Chomsky my good man.

Nothing great was ever accomplished by a fucking quitter. Don't give up on yourself or your people! Be the change you want to see in the world! Heil Hitl- oh shit sorry wrong forum.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: BluPhoenix on February 11, 2016 05:38 PM
(http://i.imgur.com/VaKxl9N.png)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: rtil on February 11, 2016 06:13 PM
all of it
(http://i.imgur.com/k4vLuy1.gif)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: bd648 on February 11, 2016 07:26 PM
surprised nobody linked this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voluntary_Human_Extinction_Movement)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on February 11, 2016 08:12 PM
I did in literally the first post but I don't blame you for not reading it.

sup, names grinachi or whatever that old tba meme was i can't remember.
Hi squeef.

I re-registered here despite the, um, colorful past between myself and this forum specifically to post ITT.

I think my former account actually included the punchline of the "Wisdom of Silenus" quote in its signature, maybe rtil can confirm, it doesn't really matter though. This is of course the most beautiful of all possible Antinatalist prose, leaving this thread sorely underdeveloped as a result of its omission.

Quote from: Wisdom of Silenus
“You, most blessed and happiest among humans, may well consider those blessed and happiest who have departed this life before you, and thus you may consider it unlawful, indeed blasphemous, to speak anything ill or false of them, since they now have been transformed into a better and more refined nature. This thought is indeed so old that the one who first uttered it is no longer known; it has been passed down to us from eternity, and hence doubtless it is true. Moreover, you know what is so often said and passes for a trite expression. What is that, he asked? He answered: It is best not to be born at all; and next to that, it is better to die than to live; and this is confirmed even by divine testimony. Pertinently to this they say that Midas, after hunting, asked his captive Silenus somewhat urgently, what was the most desirable thing among humankind. At first he could offer no response, and was obstinately silent. At length, when Midas would not stop plaguing him, he erupted with these words, though very unwillingly: ‘you, seed of an evil genius and precarious offspring of hard fortune, whose life is but for a day, why do you compel me to tell you those things of which it is better you should remain ignorant? For he lives with the least worry who knows not his misfortune; but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can.’ It is plain therefore, that he declared the condition of the dead to be better than that of the living.”
That is beautiful. Schopenhauer talked about it in TWAWAR but I've never read the whole passage. Thank you.

When I was a younger lad, my favorite part of the passage was this; "but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can." Particularly the juxtaposition of one shitty scenario with an even shittier one. I reveled in it, it was delightful for me. I felt wiser by my having knowledge of it, for it seemed the ultimate answer to all of life's problems and inconsistencies. People are starving to death in Africa while I sit with plenty for naught but my good fortune to be born into an American family? This doesn't matter, we all ought not to exist at any rate. I suspect Bamyasi of being in at least a somewhat similar state of mind -- though probably more refined.
The only difference between our viewpoints is that I don't see the first scenario as shitty at all: nonexistence is neutral when considering potential pleasure, and positive when considering potential suffering (Benatar's position). Though I understand where you're coming from, that the idea of nonexistence being preferable is an affront to the Pollyanna principle we were instilled with during childhood or nascent human evolution. It's not more refined, I just read Schopenhauer instead of Nietzsche.

"if choice we have"

Bamyasi's position hinges on that choice being made by Bamyasi (I'm not sure if you're a man or a woman or some Tumblr poster who doesn't believe in gender, so I'll call you Bamyasi, or probably henceforth, OP)
You're right that my position is based on decisions I'd already made, I won't dispute that. I will dispute your second and third points though.

-- since obviously the currently unborn haven't really developed decision making yet. Or fingers. Or much of anything really. But I digress.
The unborn don't have anatomy or autonomy, yes, but, like the noumenon they manifest, they Will have those things, or at the very least anatomy (feels pain) and the appearance of autonomy (inflicts it), if they happen to be concieved. It's cause and effect, and effect should always be considered when making a decision. In fact it's the only thing that should be considered (@basketweaver (http://www.thebackalleys.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3084) would disagree here but I'm just getting into all the Traditionalism and virtue ethics stuff).

Whether or not OP is capable of admitting; understanding, believing, or even grokking it -- there exist people for whom suffering is not the greatest ill of existence.
What's worse than suffering though? I'm basically including any possible negative experience under the "suffering" category.

Most of OP's Antinatalism seems to emphasize suffering explicitly, while cozily ignoring the oft-repeated mantra that without pain, we cannot know happiness.
I think this is a weak argument for life affirmation, personally, if only because I think happiness is a weak argument for anything that isn't consumer goods. In my opinion, saying "Yes" to life entails saying "Yes" to all of human and animal experience, including the worst imaginable suffering. If we say "Yes" to life, we have to say "Yes" to Peter Scully and Adam Lanza. We have to say "Yes" to the Holocaust, the Holodomor, Nanking, Hiroshima, Khmer Rouge and the Great Leap Forward. We have to say "Yes" to hard determinism and the inevitable entropic decay of the universe. We have to "[stand] stark naked before the silent, staring void" and answer "Yes." Most of all, we have to say "Yes" to a world in which only a very small fraction of this suffering is redeemed through art and catharsis. Which is all fine and good, but most Westerners don't live in a world where things like these exist, so it's not really possible for them to say "Yes." They live in a Hyperreal anime fantasy world (hi) in which they just do stuff without thinking about it or knowing why. They're silent, and silence does not imply consent. Same goes for people who live in the worst imaginable circumstances but just keep having children because they're stupid or horny or something I dunno.

I'm not a Buddhist, because I'm Occidental. However, I suspect that Buddhism is very concerned with karmic balancing, is it not? Again, I am entirely ignorant of Buddhist thought, but this already seems like a massive hole in justifying your W.E.I.R.D guilt-trip fantasies with the mystical Orient, and her beautiful forms. Just be honest here, the only reason somebody would support Antinatalism is because of a deep desire to destroy themselves, and possibly the entire civilization which produced them, if only they had the button. This I believe is best topically summed up in rtil's poignant words -- eurocentric shithole.
You're absolutely right here. I am W.E.I.R.D. and foster nothing but resentment for the societal and biological forces that conspired my parents to fuck, pulling me from the aether into this ridiculous corporeal slaughterhouse. I'm open to this being largely a response to living in a globalist society where irreconcilable cultural icons (Jesus and Anime) do battle. I guess that makes me a little like Europe sure.

Everybody here knows that you will not convince Africans, Mexicans, even Tibetans to adopt Antinatalism. Only the truly W.E.I.R.D are gripped by such dead end thoughts. As far as convincing Westerners to adopt it, well, we already have. michaell brought up good points about European replacement rates but I guess that's just crap spewed forth from his eurocentric shithole, so, probably not important. Best to just sweep that under the rug, we've got serious discussion to attend to here folks. Yeah, its much more important to say you don't want to even think about eugenics because, ew, reddit -- meanwhile supporting Planned Parenthood and abortions (eugenics, mostly affecting the precious African American cohort btw, who are superior due to their lack of eurocentrism).
I agree with everything you're saying here.

SrsSam77 already demolished this thread in the fifth post, proving that old FYAD adage correct yet again. However, his brilliant work was met with softcore hentai, and a general malaise... shame on you OP! Shame! As I swear I'm getting to a point here, eventually, I'm connecting SrsSam77's post back to my earlier aside as follows.
Well I'd put a lot of thought into the OP and Sam replied without really considering my position so I responded in kind.

"if choice we have"

We as currently living beings have no choice. We were put here by our, presumably, loving parents, who also must've had good reasons one would hope. You can bemoan this fact; spend decades going into insane levels of detail about it, make philosophical and ethical arguments against it, but here we are. OP's only choice to make at this point is whether or not to continue the cycle. OP, the individual. OP, the single living person. OP, the easily quantifiable; accountable, numerable entity. The point we are all well to aware of is that, as individuals, our choice... to breed, or not to breed... is not much of a question.
If you're implicitly calling me a narcissist I must confess you're right again. Why isn't it a question though? More and more people are doing just that.

It only matters when it has the effect on a national scale, as so eurocentrically pointed out by michaell, of course.

You can protest.

But you can not break the cycle.
I could just as easily argue Europe's decline is part of the "cycle," which Spengler did a hundred years ago. Or is that what you're saying?

The engine of suffering which drives man will jettison our genes across this galaxy someday.
Oh but why bother? Which princess exactly are we trying to impress?

Antinatalism will be scattered to the winds; as will Feminism, Egalitarianism, Liberalism, and all the rest of the suicide cults seeking the destruction of the Occident.
Add too: Humanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, etc.

The White Man is the most in touch with Gnon, and he demands suffering, for his dark and terrible work remains incomplete without it.

Rome was built on the raped wombs of the suffering Sabine women. The Netherlands on the exploited Indonesians. America? Why, just crack open some Zinn or Chomsky my good man.

Nothing great was ever accomplished by a fucking quitter. Don't give up on yourself or your people! Be the change you want to see in the world! Heil Hitl- oh shit sorry wrong forum.
I'm very close to posting a smug anime face at this part, but I won't because I respect you (not that SMA is a sign of disrespect mind you).

But.

Now, with the addition of a mere four or so years of age, I have an entirely new perspective. This bit actually relates to the on-going discussion, so thank you for bearing with me through the preamble.
I have no doubt I probably will too. Thank you for the thoughtful response.

Where should I start with Nick Land? I've skimmed xenosystems and plugged it here a few times but I don't think my knowledge base is very good.

Also does anyone know what happened to Zeeb's blog?

Thread theme song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpPnEwZiDno (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpPnEwZiDno)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: squf on February 11, 2016 10:51 PM
all of it
(http://i.imgur.com/k4vLuy1.gif)

Pretty good, I don't have a response reaction .gif that encapsulates "Does your dad know you spend all your time making Chinese child porn doodles?" so text will have to suffice.

sup, names grinachi or whatever that old tba meme was i can't remember.
Hi squeef.
Hi, I don't know who you are, or maybe I do, but I'm unfamiliar with this pseudonym.

Also, I'm glad I remembered this post (http://darwinianreactionary.wordpress.com/2014/02/25/the-shakers-deathwish-values-and-autonomy/) so I can link it to you now.

When I was a younger lad, my favorite part of the passage was this; "but for humans, the best for them is not to be born at all, not to partake of nature’s excellence; not to be is best, for both sexes. This should be our choice, if choice we have; and the next to this is, when we are born, to die as soon as we can." Particularly the juxtaposition of one shitty scenario with an even shittier one. I reveled in it, it was delightful for me. I felt wiser by my having knowledge of it, for it seemed the ultimate answer to all of life's problems and inconsistencies. People are starving to death in Africa while I sit with plenty for naught but my good fortune to be born into an American family? This doesn't matter, we all ought not to exist at any rate. I suspect Bamyasi of being in at least a somewhat similar state of mind -- though probably more refined.
The only difference between our viewpoints is that I don't see the first scenario as shitty at all: nonexistence is neutral when considering potential pleasure, and positive when considering potential suffering (Benatar's position). Though I understand where you're coming from, that the idea of nonexistence being preferable is an affront to the Pollyanna principle we were instilled with during childhood or nascent human evolution. It's not more refined, I just read Schopenhauer instead of Nietzsche.
Oh but it is shitty, not universally of course, but we can conceive of a universe without us in it. To nihilists like rtil, this is great, because it means no more Europeans mucking things up, but to decent people -- humans deserve existence -- and probably all that that entails. As I mentioned, SrsSam77 already summed up the best position on this matter, which is an all too human emotion. If God wants us dead, then God be damned. We are human beings, and we will make our presence in this universe felt. To care about why any of that is important probably requires a leap of faith, I have faith that there is more to life than pleasure and pain, beyond materialism. Even if its just imagined, and my imagining it is merely a source of pleasure, and so on ad infinitum.

But beyond that -- I believe it to be true. It seems self-evident to me, the most pernicious form of truth there is. There is more to life than pleasure or pain, one obvious one I can think of is growth. If the human species is like a cancer on the universe, well I mean, its only natural for us to want to expand to that entire universe yeah? I don't like comparing humanity to a cancer because I'm not a misanthrope, but you know, then I'm reminded of rtil and it becomes kind of hard to argue against. I'm kidding of course, rtil is a really shitty cancer, one which only inhabits its own website.

Also, I probably didn't do a good enough job getting it across that I no longer support Antinatalism. I used to, thanks to Nietzsche, me being 17, and a particularly bad romantic break-up I was going through at the time, but.

-- since obviously the currently unborn haven't really developed decision making yet. Or fingers. Or much of anything really. But I digress.
The unborn don't have anatomy or autonomy, yes, but, like the noumenon they manifest, they Will have those things, or at the very least anatomy (feels pain) and the appearance of autonomy (inflicts it), if they happen to be concieved. It's cause and effect, and effect should always be considered when making a decision. In fact it's the only thing that should be considered (@basketweaver (http://www.thebackalleys.com/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=3084) would disagree here but I'm just getting into all the Traditionalism and virtue ethics stuff).
Yes it was a bad aside and attempt at humor, but since you've taken it and expanded on it, now I have some meat. The world which you and I inhabit happens to be the coziest, though certainly not the kampfiest (ayyy), of all worlds before us -- excluding historical examples of complete outliers, say, Sultans with harems numbering in the thousands. This ought to be enough to persuade a reasonably intelligent individual such as yourself to want to imperfectly pseudo-clone yourself (I'm shoving this in here as a perspective on child birth to appeal to the sci-fi nerd in you). Unless of course you're not white, or worse, rtil. Then by all means, please continue supporting and promoting Antinatalism.

Do not go softly into that dysgenic night! You may be opposed to breeding for perfectly reasonable and understandable moral reasons, but UNICEF projects that Africa will number 3 billion strong by 2100, and imagining Imgbabwe from the Umbubtu village charting all this out and deciding not to have kids is about as close to real suffering as I can muster.

Whether or not OP is capable of admitting; understanding, believing, or even grokking it -- there exist people for whom suffering is not the greatest ill of existence.
What's worse than suffering though? I'm basically including any possible negative experience under the "suffering" category.
Reading one of rtil's posts.

I jest, but, negative experiences can lead to positive outcomes with the proper willpower. I'll relate the story of my upbringing rather briefly, as it illustrates the point well enough. Me and my two brothers were raised in nearly identical situations, one of those brothers is only half-blood to me -- he has a different father, hence a different Y chromosome. I suspect this is part of the reason for his later self-destruction.

My father, was a bit of a drinker. Mean at that. He was a man who served in the USMC, so certainly about as far away from the milquetoast dramatic pansy we know only as rtil. This man, my father, whom I love, would sometimes get a little unhinged, and maybe smack a broad around every now and again, maybe a kid. My half-blood brother, the weak one. I think this environment destroyed him. You would probably say this was suffering, or, a negative experience. To be woken up at random, only to have your father savage you and your siblings for no discernible reason. The half-blood is now a tranny, so, about half as gay as rtil I suppose, I don't know, I can't really relate to that world.

The other brother, full-blood. He's a man's man of his own making. Been in and out of jail, handled himself like a man in the streets, a good man. Misguided, felonious, easily hateable, but a good man nonetheless. Now, he is clean and sober and raising his own kids, two little children he doesn't even beat the ever-loving shit out of like our old pops.

Then there's me of course, probably the most miserable of the bunch. But that's only because its 2016 and I'm posting on rtil's forum.

Most of OP's Antinatalism seems to emphasize suffering explicitly, while cozily ignoring the oft-repeated mantra that without pain, we cannot know happiness.
I think this is a weak argument for life affirmation, personally, if only because I think happiness is a weak argument for anything that isn't consumer goods. In my opinion, saying "Yes" to life entails saying "Yes" to all of human and animal experience, including the worst imaginable suffering. If we say "Yes" to life, we have to say "Yes" to Peter Scully and Adam Lanza. We have to say "Yes" to the Holocaust, the Holodomor, Nanking, Hiroshima, Khmer Rouge and the Great Leap Forward. We have to say "Yes" to hard determinism and the inevitable entropic decay of the universe. We have to "[stand] stark naked before the silent, staring void" and answer "Yes." Most of all, we have to say "Yes" to a world in which only a very small fraction of this suffering is redeemed through art and catharsis. Which is all fine and good, but most Westerners don't live in a world where things like these exist, so it's not really possible for them to say "Yes." They live in a Hyperreal anime fantasy world (hi) in which they just do stuff without thinking about it or knowing why. They're silent, and silence does not imply consent. Same goes for people who live in the worst imaginable circumstances but just keep having children because they're stupid or horny or something I dunno.
It is absolutely a weak argument, I'd expect to find it on a bumper sticker or a washed up high school Art teacher's coffee mug (future gift ideas for rtil?). Luckily, you're a gracious host, and willing to overlook my muddy shoes I forgot to remove before stomping about your living room.

To answer your much more salient response in a word, "Yes". Yes to all of those things and much more. Consider that we are here, so far removed from that sin, and we know it to be wrong. The point that people make mistakes isn't the problem. I'm aware you probably just scoffed involuntarily, and find reference to Holodomor as mere mistake callous at best, but please, bear with me.

The only time making a mistake is a problem is if you fail to properly atone for it. The only time a negative experience is a problem is if you fail to improve from it. This is why the death of God is so vital, because we can now begin to fully understand that God was never killed, not really. You cannot kill the iron laws of nature, which is simply what God is. Gnon. We atone for the sins of our past daily, to the point where it is arguable that Western people atone too much (http://www.amazon.com/Pathological-Altruism-Barbara-Oakley/dp/0199738572).

I still struggle with this myself, as I'm recovering from a decade of thinking I was an atheist.

To your closing sentence, I naturally subscribe to the r/K selection theory as outlined by Anonymous Conservative, though it is a bit cheeky at times. You're talking about Africa, so let's just say Africa, and it is because they are r-selected. This is a euphemistic way of saying not only are they both stupid and horny, but, this is a viable breeding strategy for stupid horny people. To top it off, they don't give a shit about raising their kids, and the cycle repeats if they happen to bumble their way to reproductive age.

None of the tragedies you've listed is a strong argument to support extinction. And you should know, that if you do continue to support extinction, it is only you who will become extinct. Perhaps, consider that you merely don't want to fight, to struggle. Try imagining a reality in which you do raise the sword, because this is a zero-sum situation with competing groups, and if you morally and ethically 'an hero' your enemies certainly won't be weeping over your grave. They'll be too busy with the being stupid and horny bit as discussed previously.

If you think art and catharsis is the only positive outcome to all of this wanton destruction, consider that the new black plague which will inherit the Earth if the Occident just up and kills itself, doesn't give a single shit about art and doesn't even have a dictionary let alone an entry for catharsis.

I'm not a Buddhist, because I'm Occidental. However, I suspect that Buddhism is very concerned with karmic balancing, is it not? Again, I am entirely ignorant of Buddhist thought, but this already seems like a massive hole in justifying your W.E.I.R.D guilt-trip fantasies with the mystical Orient, and her beautiful forms. Just be honest here, the only reason somebody would support Antinatalism is because of a deep desire to destroy themselves, and possibly the entire civilization which produced them, if only they had the button. This I believe is best topically summed up in rtil's poignant words -- eurocentric shithole.
You're absolutely right here. I am W.E.I.R.D. and foster nothing but resentment for the societal and biological forces that conspired my parents to fuck, pulling me from the aether into this ridiculous corporeal slaughterhouse. I'm open to this being largely a response to living in a globalist society where irreconcilable cultural icons (Jesus and Anime) do battle. I guess that makes me a little like Europe sure.
Then stop promoting Globalism. We of course have a more healthy and robust alternative in the form of Nationalism. You can order your "Make America Great Again" hat at jebbush.com (http://jebbush.com)

The classic neoreactionary response you've just invoked goes like so; "if you find yourself in a hole, stop digging."

SrsSam77 already demolished this thread in the fifth post, proving that old FYAD adage correct yet again. However, his brilliant work was met with softcore hentai, and a general malaise... shame on you OP! Shame! As I swear I'm getting to a point here, eventually, I'm connecting SrsSam77's post back to my earlier aside as follows.
Well I'd put a lot of thought into the OP and Sam replied without really considering my position so I responded in kind.
I don't blame you! I just think he actually did make a fair enough point, though not in as many words. Also, the fifth post meme is classic and I adore it.

"if choice we have"

We as currently living beings have no choice. We were put here by our, presumably, loving parents, who also must've had good reasons one would hope. You can bemoan this fact; spend decades going into insane levels of detail about it, make philosophical and ethical arguments against it, but here we are. OP's only choice to make at this point is whether or not to continue the cycle. OP, the individual. OP, the single living person. OP, the easily quantifiable; accountable, numerable entity. The point we are all well to aware of is that, as individuals, our choice... to breed, or not to breed... is not much of a question.
If you're implicitly calling me a narcissist I must confess you're right again. Why isn't it a question though? More and more people are doing just that.
Every man's favorite topic of discussion is himself. The point I failed to arrive at was that if you the individual decides not to breed, well, that's a drop in an ocean. The overwhelming majority of the other 7 billion Homos are probably never going to hear about Antinatalism, much less actually consider it viable or healthy. 

It only matters when it has the effect on a national scale, as so eurocentrically pointed out by michaell, of course.

You can protest.

But you can not break the cycle.
I could just as easily argue Europe's decline is part of the "cycle," which Spengler did a hundred years ago. Or is that what you're saying?
Not the cycle I'm referring to, though I love Spengler. I outlined above my position that you, acting individually, will be incapable of making the rest of humanity drink the kool-aid with you into that last good night. I probably should've avoided such a loaded word, but shitposting is more my speed, rather than these effort driven screeds.

The engine of suffering which drives man will jettison our genes across this galaxy someday.
Oh but why bother? Which princess exactly are we trying to impress?
Well for me its enough that cumming in a pussy feels good, but, I realize I've got exceedingly low standards.

Antinatalism will be scattered to the winds; as will Feminism, Egalitarianism, Liberalism, and all the rest of the suicide cults seeking the destruction of the Occident.
Add too: Humanism, Transhumanism, Antihumanism, etc.
Yeah. Honestly the end of my post just kind of segued into full on troll mode so, um. I'm kind of glad you bothered quoting it all though.

The White Man is the most in touch with Gnon, and he demands suffering, for his dark and terrible work remains incomplete without it.

Rome was built on the raped wombs of the suffering Sabine women. The Netherlands on the exploited Indonesians. America? Why, just crack open some Zinn or Chomsky my good man.

Nothing great was ever accomplished by a fucking quitter. Don't give up on yourself or your people! Be the change you want to see in the world! Heil Hitl- oh shit sorry wrong forum.
I'm very close to posting a smug anime face at this part, but I won't because I respect you (not that SMA is a sign of disrespect mind you).
I'm trying to work on my writing and my stand-up routine, so, I was kind of pleased with that bit. You should feel free to fight bullshit with bullshit.

But.

Now, with the addition of a mere four or so years of age, I have an entirely new perspective. This bit actually relates to the on-going discussion, so thank you for bearing with me through the preamble.
I have no doubt I probably will too. Thank you for the thoughtful response.
Yeah I hope to one day end up like my mom or my uncle and just be at a point in my life where I go "This is it. These are all the things that I know. I don't need to know anything more than this. My opinions will remain unwavering until the day I die, from here on out." Maybe that's what parenthood is for.

Where should I start with Nick Land? I've skimmed xenosystems and plugged it here a few times but I don't think my knowledge base is very good.

I'm probably not the guy to ask, because, outside of his post on the Dark Enlightenment and uh, some other shit he's written, I have no respect at all for Nick Land -- and I kind of suspect that my knowledge base also isn't very good, and I wonder if that might be why? I instinctually don't like Nick Land as a man, and I sometimes feel that guts know more than brains, but I don't know. I'm aware that it isn't difficult at all to posit that Land is more intelligent than myself, but luckily for me I also don't consider intelligence to be the be-all-end-all arbiter of all that is good and holy and pure. See how the ego contorts and reflects? Its a perfect machine really.

That being said, I spent about 3 months or so making xenosystems a daily visit of mine, and probably the best bits I found were as follows;

* Land ripping on the "refugee" crisis
* The comments section
* The blogroll on the sidebar, where I found Jim's blog
* Jim's blog (http://blog.jim.com/), which I prefer to xenosystems
* Jim, who I prefer more as a man to Land, though I haven't seen a picture of Jim yet

edit: this just in, I've recently been informed that Jim might be a pedophile, so... But hey, fuck rtil am I right fellas?!

Also does anyone know what happened to Zeeb's blog?
No I do not, last I checked it was up, but alas now it is not. I was in touch with him recently via e-mail, and I have nothing but good things to say about the man, but, we don't exactly keep in touch.

As to your thread theme, I've been working on fascist vaporwave recently, and some of the tracks I think are pretty good. I would make fascist synthwave but that would require, like, effort, or talent.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on February 11, 2016 11:02 PM
ye, hell ye (http://i.imgur.com/6JQJmqC.gif)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: rtil on February 12, 2016 12:19 AM
all of it
(http://i.imgur.com/k4vLuy1.gif)

Pretty good, I don't have a response reaction .gif that encapsulates "Does your dad know you spend all your time making Chinese child porn doodles?" so text will have to suffice.


Quote
child porn

my my, aren't we feisty? you got so angry you started projecting. i know you're trying your very best to fit in with your online buddies (sad that you're still that desperate), but you and i both know you could never muster enough self-confidence to even imagine saying that to my face. at least don't make it so obvious you're just as insecure as you were when you were a kid.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Stu4U on February 12, 2016 01:51 AM
SHOT DOWN
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Binary_2 on February 12, 2016 02:13 AM
De-
STROYED

(click to show/hide)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Stu4U on February 12, 2016 02:31 AM
(http://i.imgur.com/2rTqjKk.png)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on February 12, 2016 02:41 AM
SHOT DOWN

De-
STROYED

(click to show/hide)

(http://i.imgur.com/2rTqjKk.png)

(http://i.imgur.com/dsvdvAQ.gif)

at least try to address the points he made instead of engaging in sophistry (which u ppl would rightly call cocksucking if anyone else was doing it but blind spots are a useful thing in forum wars i suppose)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Stu4U on February 12, 2016 02:44 AM
nah
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: rtil on February 12, 2016 02:56 AM
engaging in sophistry

cocksucking

straight from the horse's mouth!
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: michaell on February 12, 2016 07:38 AM
User "squf" - I suggest you peruse User Guidelines thoroughly before posting. Also, please make an introductory thread about yourself, so we all can get to know you better - we do not want the Forums to be cluttered with meaningless posts out of the context.

Thank you for your attention and have a nice day.

~Michaell
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: crackers on February 12, 2016 08:43 AM
all of it
(http://i.imgur.com/k4vLuy1.gif)

Pretty good, I don't have a response reaction .gif that encapsulates "Does your dad know you spend all your time making Chinese child porn doodles?" so text will have to suffice.

Hi Squf, may I ask you kindly that you do not mention "dads" on thebackalleys.com, as it is an extreme trigger for me. If you are going to post about "dads", please tag it in a spoiler with the caption "father related joke/gag" (◡‿◡✿)

Have a nice day.

o (^‿^✿)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: squf on February 12, 2016 10:30 AM
What, now you can't take a joke?

As creator and owner of this forum you should know all the best and coolest hentai threads to post in, why don't you go choose one of those? I'm waiting for Bamyasi's next effort post.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: soup on February 12, 2016 10:57 AM
nobody thought my sick burn was any good but its ok because little did those fuckers know it was actually a joke all along
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: BluPhoenix on February 12, 2016 11:03 AM
passive aggression is my favorite jape aha! *slaps le knee* hoo hoo !
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Gladius on February 12, 2016 11:43 AM
umad
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: squf on February 12, 2016 12:50 PM
Well? This is rtil's personal echo chamber, obviously I have no power here, retards. And what will happen if rtil comes down to San Diego and I do call his shit awful to his face? Literally nothing? Oh, cool. Please do not derail my good man Bamyasi's thread ^_^ バレエマットのTMフロアでバレエの練習をすると楽しい!
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: ProtoChaud on February 12, 2016 02:01 PM
Well? This is rtil's personal echo chamber, obviously I have no power here, retards. And what will happen if rtil comes down to San Diego and I do call his shit awful to his face? Literally nothing? Oh, cool. Please do not derail my good man Bamyasi's thread ^_^ バレエマットのTMフロアでバレエの練習をすると楽しい!

Nah, plenty of us disagree with you or just plain dislike you for other reasons, myself included.

I was trying to avoid posting in here, but what the hell, I may as well shout at a wall for a minute.

I've seen you before. Not you specifically, but your kind. You're a pretentious pseudo-intellectual neo-con who shoots down any ideology that dares show compassion as 'leftist' without daring to explain why that's necessarily a bad thing.

You're so extremely conservative because you admire the idea of 'pulling yourself up by your bootstraps', while in your actual life all you do is complain about liberals keeping you down.

You constantly describe the LGBT community, and basically anyone who doesn't cling to stereotypical gender roles as 'degenerate', again without using any actual logic to back your position.

You're either a staunch atheist who relies on 'survival of the fittest' as his main ideology, or a hardcore, near psychotic, christian who seems to think that the bible can be used as a textbook to explain everything in the world, because fuck cross-referencing your information, right? There really isn't much of a difference between the 2.

I could go on and on, and you're almost definitely going to say that I'm wrong on all counts. My best guess is you'll say you're an upper-middle class man with a well-paying job you love, a wife who adores you (and of course submits to your glorious authority as a man), and maybe even a kid or 2.  Personally, I don't care what you say on here, I've known too many people exactly like you to believe anything you say about your personal situation.

You only rejoined the forum to insult rtil a few times, this topic was just a smokescreen, there's no reason to keep up the charade (though don't get me wrong, I fully understand you believe every statement you've made, that's why I see you as so reprehensible).

Now, you're probably thinking "I can just say 'your entire post was ad hominem attacks, you did nothing to debate my point!" And you're correct, I have done nothing but attack you.

And I don't care. See, as I've said before, I've dealt with people like you before, and know that you've got your head so far up your own ass that you're probably choking on your own throat, so reasoning would do absolutely nothing. Also I really just don't care to debate heavy topics of any type, I'm not good at it, and would much rather just live my life doing things I enjoy. And I will. One of the things I enjoy the most is insulting pretentious cunts like yourself.

Now, most people would just say 'get fucked' or 'kill yourself' right about now. I won't, after all, you're a human being, your beliefs, like most people's, are in a constant state of flux, so you might end up a perfectly nice person at some point in the future.

So I wish you well, and hope I can buy you a beer one day. :)
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: crackers on February 12, 2016 02:23 PM
CRINGE
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: michaell on February 12, 2016 02:49 PM
User "squf" - I can see you are trying, however I believe your overall demeanor does not exactly fulfill our community standards.

You do not have to fret, I am here to help you.

First of all, you may wish to attain some some rudimentary knowledge a fully fledged TBA member should possess.

Hereby, I provide you with some materials you may use during your self-study.

http://animanga.wikia.com/wiki/Animanga_Wiki (http://animanga.wikia.com/wiki/Animanga_Wiki)

http://www.thebackalleys.com/forum/general/the-hentai-thread/940/ (http://www.thebackalleys.com/forum/general/the-hentai-thread/940/)   

I underline those are mere basics and there is a lot awaiting you, but we all have to get started somewhere.

Thank you for your time.

~Michaell
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: ProtoChaud on February 12, 2016 02:56 PM
CRINGE

Yeah, I suppose I was a bit cringy. Honestly, I just wanted to insult him, and was upfront about that desire. So I did. I'm happy with it at least.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Stu4U on February 12, 2016 03:40 PM
can we file this away in 'i threw up' now please.
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: ProtoChaud on February 12, 2016 03:45 PM
can we file this away in 'i threw up' now please.

And ban squf along with it. :wile:
Title: Re: Should we reduce the current human population by 100%
Post by: Bamyasi on February 12, 2016 03:46 PM
Quote from: everyone in this thread
Shitposting
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWa0dZMHYeE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWa0dZMHYeE)

Squeef if you're interested in continuing this conversation (I certainly am) please email me (pomofo@yandex.com).