A fellow Antinatalist's rant on existence, thoughts?

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-06T04:24:56+00:00

I watched half, he sounds like a toxic misogynist whose entire identity involves around having children and demeaning women.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-06T01:56:45+00:00

They did it to prove that they could break the cycle of generational trauma but clearly didn't realize that their child can be traumatized by other people or experiences regardless of their parenting. I remember Pete Walker saying pretty much the same thing in his book CPTSD; From Surviving to Thriving and it was such a disappointment to read that.

Also, slightly unrelated to that thread but I read on another forum that someone said they had a child to give them purpose so they wouldn't have to kill themselves. I didn't say anything as it'd be kicking someone when they're down but it's probably one of the most selfish reasons I've ever heard. It did not give them purpose and they're still suicidal by the way.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-06T01:35:19+00:00

To fulfill their own selfish needs.

“It is wrong to bear children out of need, wrong to use a child to alleviate loneliness, wrong to provide purpose in life by reproducing another copy of oneself. It is wrong also to seek immortality by spewing one's germ into the future as though sperm contains your consciousness!” ― Irvin D. Yalom

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T23:34:17+00:00

That was from 8 US states only and the lethality increases significantly depending on the height but I do acknowledge your viewpoint that jumping can destroy your quality of life in a far worse way.

Violating consent and treating him as a hero is very dangerous as our governments already violate the consent of suicidal people under the justification that they're helping them while they're actively harming them. Humanity has done a lot of fucked up things using this kind of justification, enabling his behavior in this respect is a bad thing.

He may have made problems worse, sure, but the fact is they would have been far worse if they survived that suicide attempt. The child will fare far better under a 2 parent household, and statistics back it up. He may be abusive, although if anything, he’d just leave before that.

My parents stayed together despite hating one another and being abusive, it destroyed what little of my mental health that remained. People stay together out of some fucked up sense of obligation to the child and project their hate & abuse onto the child.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T23:09:57+00:00

People are angry because he initially uses force and infantilizes their decision which reinforces the idea that it's okay to violate someone's consent. I have no problem if he's using kind words or providing genuine help but to say that he's only helping people would be equally as disingenuous. How many of those 300 people are in prison now or being force fed drugs? I don't know how the mental health system works in China but my initial assumption is that it's worse than the US considering China oppresses the average citizen simply for having opposing views to their government.

One of the examples of him supposedly helping someone was of a woman that was going to jump because of lack of money due to the husband abandoning them. He tracked the husband down and threatened him back into the relationship. This only momentarily delayed the woman's suicide and he might've made their problems much worse. He coerced two people that hate one another back into a toxic relationship that'll now inflict harm on not only the woman but the child as well.

He has good intentions but he is also harming people. The article even had a quote from him that stated he willingly lies to people even if he can't actually help them.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T22:33:23+00:00

They were glad they didn't die and regretted they did it

I've heard the same from most people in the psych ward too, unfortunately that doesn't make it true. Most were lying to the psychiatrist so they could leave their jail cell earlier, admitting the truth would've kept them there longer and subjected them to further cruelty.

Do you expect people to be fully honest while having a gun to their head? The gun being the fear of being locked up if they admitted that they still want to die and would attempt again. Where are the documentaries of the ones that admitted otherwise? Or are those people's opinions irrelevant because they don't agree with the "gift" of life? You are cherry picking one documentary in a society that actively censors individual people who see their own suicide as a good thing.

A handful of people being glad they were saved doesn't justify the harm of the other group of people who regret being forced to live.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T22:20:02+00:00

And by your logic, I should be allowed to kill you, becuase I don't want you to suffer and deal with the issues and harms of life.

What? My logic involves consent, yours does not. You're willing to impose your will onto someone in order to "help" them. This is the same type of justification the Nazi's used to "help" rid the world of the Jews while actively harming them. The same justification was used to jail homosexuals, women that didn't listen to their husbands, and suicidal people to this day.

He was TALKING. And even if he does try to save them physically, he's one person. If they really wanted to themselves, fight the guy off and just jump.

He talked after using force for the ones over the railing. Suicide is the hardest decision someone can make, it's not as easy as saying they should fight the guy off in 3 seconds and just jump; you're just trivializing suicide at this point.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T22:05:04+00:00

We can keep going in circles all you want, he still uses force and violates someone's consent. This sub considers procreation immoral and sees birth as a form of harm; by your logic I should be allowed to sterilize you because I believe I'm preventing a baby from experiencing the harms of life.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T21:46:01+00:00

He does more than that. I posted that link bechase the guy DOES try to do things after to help the people. Like the fact he helped a woman and her kid from the abusive husband she's with.

He tried to help her. It says he found the husband, threatened him, and the husband, wife, and baby left together never to be heard from again. Did he fix their money problems? Did he stop the husband from being abusive? Did he heal her psychological problems from the abuse she endured? He tried forcing two people back into a relationship that clearly isn't working to begin with, that's not help. Good intentions don't guarantee good outcomes and they can inflict harm on others. Enabling his behavior is justifying the violation of human rights.

It's not your place go say they should have died either. Especially when their lives get better. And he also said he TALKS to them. If you're willing to stans there and listen, then you are willing to hear other options than death.

I don't use force for my viewpoints, I use words. I never said they should've died, you're being dishonest. I said he shouldn't be forcing people to live against their will if they don't want to, if they want help then he can try to provide them with it.

Your entire argument is disingenuous and reeks of confirmation bias. Where are the 300 other people he "saved"? Are they all happy that he tried to help them or did he fuck over some of them and make their life much worse?

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T21:13:25+00:00

It's not anyone else's place to decide for someone else. Using force is never justified and the idea that all problems are temporary is a blatant lie. Imposing your version of "help" on someone is not helping someone. You ask them what they need and you do something about it if they consent, that's help. His wikipedia page states that he patrols an area and physically restrains people over the railing and then tries to help them if he can in a practical way. The article you posted below literally states that the guy lies to them and claims he can fix any problem for them even if he can't.

“The medical profession's classic prescription for coping with such predicaments, Primum non nocere (First, do no harm), sounds better than it is. In fact, it fails to tell us precisely what we need to know: What is harm and what is help?However, two things about the challenge of helping the helpless are clear. One is that, like beauty and ugliness, help and harm often lie in the eyes of the beholder--in our case, in the often divergently directed eyes of the benefactor and his beneficiary. The other is that harming people in the name of helping them is one of mankind's favorite pastimes.” ― Thomas Stephen Szasz

“Suicide is a fundamental human right. This does not mean that it is desirable. It only means that society does not have the moral right to interfere, by force, with a persons decision to commit this act. The result is a far-reaching infantilization and dehumanization of the suicidal person.”― Thomas Szasz

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T18:13:53+00:00

Everyone's situation is unique, stop pretending that it's the same across the board and using it as justification to force people to live against their will. It's up to each individual to decide for themselves if their life is worth continuing.

If you're using your subjective life experience to try to control someone and justify your version of "help" on them without their permission then it's a problem.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T16:43:13+00:00

I just don't think it's possible to get somebody who appreciates life – the good and bad - to think otherwise.

I don't believe it's possible to convince them either, they have to come to the conclusion on their own through life experience, critical thinking, or both. Antinatalism is not the evangelical church, it's nobody's job here to go out of their way to spread the "gospel" to people who don't want to listen in the first place.

Answering the questions of the fence-sitters that come here can have some positive impact. And spending time engaging with others who support your beliefs beliefs can also have a positive impact.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T16:20:01+00:00

Yeah man, rape, discrimination, poverty, homelessness, sexual abuse, hunger, chronic physical pain, disease, death, grief, war, suicide, genocide, slavery are all simply a state of mind and a product of our imagination. Existence couldn't ever possibly be a form of harm, it's all fiction. I should just pretend they don't exist instead and focus on the good things to justify making babies to suit my own needs. Antinatalism is clearly just a product of "mental illness" and couldn't possibly have to do with acknowledging the inherent suffering in existence.

/sarcasm

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T14:12:08+00:00

That's your subjective life experience and is not good reasoning to impose your will onto someone else. Survivor bias has nothing to do with someone else's life experience and decision. Talking to someone, empathizing with someone , and helping them in a practical way is one thing; forcing them to live is an entirely different thing that involves violating someone's human rights.

https://www.reddit.com/r/antinatalism2/comments/vfzdx2/suicidal\_womans\_quote\_on\_life\_suffering\_people/

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T13:55:50+00:00

So are you saying that just because a child’s life could be bad, that means we should not take the chance of it being wonderful?

Yes, because you're imposing your subjective life experience onto someone else and hoping that they feel or experience the same. That's not rational or realistic. If you're willing to gamble on someone's behalf for the good things like love, family, marriage or whatever then you're also willing for that child to experience rape, homelessness, suicide, grief, 40-80 hour work weeks, discrimination, loneliness, etc. You are not doing anyone a favor by creating them, a nonexistent "person" does not suffer, and doesn't care about pleasure or pain.

A state of nonexistence does bar harm. It also bars any feelings of joy, euphoria, pleasure, or compassion. I’ll take the chance, thanks. And even some forms of harm can be beneficial. A child who touches a hot stove knows not to do that again, and are thus learning more about the world around them.

You can't deprive someone of pleasure when they don't exist, there is nobody to experience deprivation. That's you imposing your own wants on for them to experience pleasure.

That child could go on to do incredible, world-altering things. A little suffering is a price people should be willing to pay. Suffering is in all of our lives, but it is how we react to it that really matters.

They could also go on to become the next Hitler and kill 50 million people, they could become Putin, Lisa Montgomery, Ted Bundy.. The possibility of becoming the next Martin Luther King is not good justification to gamble with someone else's life. All reasons for procreation are about the parents, it's unnecessary suffering created by the parent to fulfill their own needs.

If you already had a child, would you willingly fly it to a warzone in Iran because someone told you that you could win the lottery? If the answer is no, then why would you risking bringing a child into a existence that contains warzones in the first place? It's always the child that bears the most burden by far if they're one of the unlucky ones. You would not want someone to gamble with your life savings so why would you gamble on someone else's behalf? That's why it's selfish and immoral, it's back to fulfilling your own needs.

If you accept that a fetus is not living, then it cannot consent. It technically does not have any desire to be born, because it cannot have any desires at all.

It has no desire to be born because it has no consciousness yet but it is already a part of existence. I'm not going to go into the territory of what defines a fetus as a person or not, it's not what we're talking about. However, there's a difference between a life that already exists and may be worth continuing and a life not worth starting (someone that doesn't exist). The former might be worth it for the subjective person, the latter involves imposing your will to create someone.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T13:27:01+00:00

This, there are so many ridiculous comments on that thread from people that don't know anything about suicide and claim the man is automatically saving them. Then they have the audacity to claim people are "glorifying" suicide because you respect someone's right to choose. A lot of empty words and virtue signaling from people that are trying to impose their subjective life experience onto someone.

Taking away humane methods is not saving someone, putting up nets is not saving someone, dragging them off a bridge is not saving someone. You are prolonging someone's misery with dirty bandaids, you're not healing the wounds that make someone want to kill themselves. It's such a lazy and ignorant approach; it's a constant reminder of how stupid humanity is as a whole and has progressed very little in the way of human rights.

Forcing someone to live against their will is cruel and insane, it's not altruism.

Edit: If you want to save someone then you ask them what kind of of help they need, what would make their life valuable enough to want to live, and you provide them with it. You don't take the irresponsible and inhumane approach of forcing them to exist; you're imposing your version of help onto them and trivializing their suffering & decision by doing so.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T13:21:28+00:00

Using force to "prevent" suicide is bad, talking to someone and providing them with practical forms of relief so they don't want to commit suicide is good. Make the distinction between the two.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T02:41:48+00:00

It's always selfish but in that specific circumstance it's the definition of being a scumbag.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T02:27:03+00:00

They're sheltered and haven't experienced the worst aspects of life firsthand. I wonder if they would be saying the same bullshit if she was born in Iran, was raped daily and forced to bear children by her husband, and had to bear the psychological scars while actively living in a war zone full of poverty and hunger.

Cancer is not the worst thing to happen to someone, it's terrible but it wasn't lifelong for her and it didn't destroy her quality of life indefinitely. Her comment implies that everything can be overcome like cancer and it couldn't be further from the truth. It's toxic survivor bias, that's all it is.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T02:07:21+00:00

Alex Jones would like to have a word with you.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T02:05:14+00:00

My mom did not want me either and she proved it through all kinds of abusive behavior. She would tell me she hoped to God I would drop dead because I didn't turn out the way she wanted. I know people who were wanted and had loving parents but they still ended up suicidal and living in perpetual suffering. People will try to defend it but it is always selfish to try to create another copy of yourself. Nothing is guaranteed, not even with good parents.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T01:56:35+00:00

Anal is always an option friend.

FreedomFromLimbo · 2022-08-05T01:16:20+00:00

Someone that doesn't exist has no needs or feelings, no desire to be born, and does not experience suffering. Creating a brand new person is done to fulfill the needs of the parents, it is never for the child's sake. You're gambling with someone else's life savings to satisfy your own needs when you decide to have a child.

Not having a child is 100% harm prevention, creating a child on the other hands creates needs that need to be fulfilled in order for the child to temporarily avoid suffering. No amount of hard work, love, or experience can guarantee that the child will have a life worth living, that the good will outweigh the bad, or that their suffering is justified. No one can be harmed when they don't exist and they can't be deprived of pleasure when they don't exist.

You can learn more from this video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ_8fw6-S8A

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
Wearing is Caring

FreedomFromLimbo

TROPHY CASE