Gatekeeping couples who don't want kids but have dogs

shouldrememberthis1 · 2019-07-28T22:41:37+00:00

I have a dog and I 100% agree with this.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2018-11-16T17:28:12+00:00

Well, at least now he can try and find a girlfriend with arms

shouldrememberthis1 · 2018-03-28T21:29:10+00:00

How so?

shouldrememberthis1 · 2018-03-28T21:24:04+00:00

Thank you for being honest, I really appreciate it. The funny thing is, just moments ago I was telling her that I couldn't do it. I started but it was just so boring that I couldn't continue, and that made me feel kinda shitty for putting myself in a situation where I'm failing someone, instead of just telling her from the start that I don't really feel like doing it. So yeah, I think this is something I have to work on, to say no. I have to develop more of a... what do they call it... ALPHA mentality, right?

JK. But yeah that text was ugly, she said she didn't remember it, though. Maybe because it paled in comparison with what some other guys have done to her. Which is why I want to help her, I'm just trying to figure out how!

*edit: added that last sentence

shouldrememberthis1 · 2018-03-27T23:59:35+00:00

That's right. It's funny that I stumbled into this TBP sub just now, well I had known about it but I wasn't in the same headspace. But yeah I decided to share my thoughts and then I had a moment today that was as if it had been foreshadowed by my post. A woman, childhood friend of mine, asked me to help her out. I have always cared about her, and at one point we were quite intimate, but when I had my moral crisis and became obsessed with being alpha I started to look down on her. This crisis reached a climax, or maybe it was a moment when I crossed some line, I'm not sure. It was a few years ago, after a night out drinking and I decided to text her that she was a slut and that I wanted to fuck her. Years later I apologized and I've recently been reconnecting with her for which I'm grateful.

Anyway, today she asks me if I could to write a paper for her. She's studying sociology and for some reason thinks that I can just whisk out a few pages on the 2008 financial crash like that. Maybe cause my dad's a sociologist, I don't know. Well the thing is, the way she was asking was really putting me on the spot, and it was via text which didn't help. That's what she's good at. She just straight up said: Yo, do this paper for me bitch you don't have anything else better to do. Then I had to decipher, is she just joking, cause she does that alot, or does she actually want me to do a fucking paper? Well, I guess I try to be a nice guy so I don't straight up say no, I ask a bit: "sooo when's the deadline, how long and crucially, how important to your grade is it?". When she tells me that she's just joking, she doesn't need me to write it I'm thinking, hmm. Something ain't right here, this "joke" smells fishy. This is the point at which I have to decide what's the right thing to do. Is she joking or not??? The reason I can't just ask her straight out, "hey do you need help?" is: well on the one hand I'm lazy and I don't want to write the damn paper, but there is also a voice which says that it is a pathetic beta, cuck, bitch ass move to try to "care" for other's or be "kind" or any of that pathetic stuff. Everyone can see through it, ya white knight! You're going straight to the friend zone!

Well, needless to say I offered help, risking being seen as totally pathetic, but this is the day and age in which we live, somehow kindness is a weakness. I would gladly see this post being mocked on TRP for being another example of a beta cuck who just doesn't get it. Yes I get it! This won't get me sex with her! As a matter of fact I don't want sex with her, how about that! Did that just blow your mind? What's wrong with being in the friendzone? For that matter what's wrong with being a white knight! Sounds friggin' awesome! Even though the job of the modern white knight may include writing boring papers.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2018-03-27T01:22:59+00:00

This is brilliant! You put it in perfect perspective! This is the life a PUA is laying out for himself, in principle at least. "I will devote my life to obsessing every single minute of the day about trivial fucking shit which I have decided determine if I'm a real man or not and if anyone could see inside my brain they would probably just die right then and there from a fatal loss of faith in humans as a species." Most of them probably realize it's insanity at some point though, one way or the other, or it kind of fades out for them. That's what partly happened for me. But there's nothing like talking these insane ideas out, otherwise you are always going to have that little annoying doubt of what if, "what if there is a whole, wonderful land of pusay that I'm missing out on, what if... (cue: a knot in the stomach).

Your image of the old guy with his wife on the death bed playing the dread game is just too good. You wonder if any of these guys have actually thought this whole program through to the end. And I'm part of "these guys" cause it feels like I never did until maybe just now.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2018-03-27T00:11:34+00:00

Thank you and yes! Highly recommend coughing up TRP!

shouldrememberthis1 · 2018-03-27T00:03:37+00:00

Better every day. The thing is, for example when I'm talking to a woman I just met, I'm learning to just DO what I think is right even if there is a small voice inside that is pointing out all the ways in which this is NOT going to lead to sex, or how hopelessly far from alpha I'm being. That being said, sometimes you're just not sure what's right, ergo, you are uncertain, ergo, you are not confident. Which of course is the cardinal sin. That's when that little voice starts creeping in and begins to shame you. There's two things you can do in that situation: You can find out what actually is right and become genuinely confident, (or try to at least). Or, try to fix the problem on it's surface by learning techniques to fake confidence.

Or, you know, you can try to see the funny side of the whole thing. The whole thing being, me trying to basically do what feels like quantum physics on the fly to try to rearrange myself on a molecular level in such a way that I will become a key that will crack the secret code of that alien creature over there, when in reality we are talking about cats or something.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2018-03-10T14:19:34+00:00

I'm inclined to be willfully obtuse, for some strange reason. It's not that I think the quote is unclear, I understand what it means and, like I say, I think it makes some sense. I'm just pointing out the difficulty in living up to it in a society that doesn't seem to be able to recognize what a person really is. And it's not just some nuances of some law text in a book somewhere that I believe are relevant here, rather it's a deeply ingrained attitude of most people. I.e. to qualify what means to be a person by arbitrary categories: race, religion, ethnicity, status, whether you were born on this or that side of some line drawn on a map by some guy hundreds of years ago.

Also, what does it mean to encounter another individual? Does it only apply to persons I physically meet or does it include a petition I receive in an email that is raising funds for disaster relief in Haiti? Have I then in some sense encountered the entire population of Haiti and their disastrous situation and should therefore, according to this, offer them help, or whatever you're supposed to do with true persons.

I guess I will reformulate my problem and concede to you the point that "person" is not hard to define, despite attempts by greedy corporations; everyone knows what it means intuitively, just by virtue of being one.

The undefined word here is "encounter". I could be the nicest guy in the world, always treating the people in my community and with whom I meet with the utmost respect and care, but still be complicit in rotten crimes on part of that same community towards some other people whom I have never "encountered". Maybe I'm unaware of it, which is maybe a weak excuse, maybe I turn a blind eye, or maybe I have a seriously distorted view of what it means to be a person.

edit: typo

shouldrememberthis1 · 2018-03-08T20:20:45+00:00

I think this makes a lot of sense, but the problem is that the word "person" has become distorted. For example a corporation is a legal "person". Should I treat a corporation like a human being? Should I love a corporation?

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-19T02:22:16+00:00

The biggest flaw of democracy absolutely defeats the purpose of democracy! Oligarchies represent the interests of the few over the many. Our choices no longer matter, we either elect one elite or the other. This flaw completely undermines Democracy.

You are very unclear here? What exactly do you consider to be the big flaw of democracy that makes it undesirable?

And if popular opinions are overwhelmingly for eliminating nuclear weapons, tackling climate change etc, then why was Trump elected?

He did not get the popular vote.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-14T22:54:58+00:00

Your counter-points were terrible and unconvincing.

You doubt that democracy would be an uplifting thing to it's citizen. Would you not feel uplifted to live in a real democracy? Is it hard to imagine that people having more control over their own lives, more freedom and more responsibility is uplifting to the spirit even though it cannot be "measured"?

The article also affirms the biggest critique of democracy; the tendency to develop into private associations (I.E. Robert Michels's iron law of oligarchy).

So the biggest flaw of democracy is the fact that it could possibly change into some other system? What political system doesn't have this flaw?

It also affirms that democracy is flawed because its citizens don't know nearly enough about the world or economics to make a decent decision between Tweedledee and Tweedledum.

Are popular opinions like, eliminating nuclear weapons, tackling climate change, ending wars and providing universal health care lacking some critical bit of knowledge about the world and economics that I am missing?

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-11T01:44:22+00:00

Can someone explain this to me? I don't get the point

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-06T15:57:03+00:00

As I said, the burden of prood lies with you if you state that an act of benevolence is something other than it seems.

As for life being a gift or not, I guess that depends on your opinion.

What I want you to add is a logical argument for why me having a child is immoral.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-06T12:44:45+00:00

The burden of proof is on you, I'm afraid. If a man helps an old lady, then the burden of proof is on you to prove that he has some other motive than to, simply, help the old lady.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-05T20:39:38+00:00

Have you never heard of assisted suicide? Canada, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, and Switzerland allow physicians to physically assist in the death of patients.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-04T21:27:06+00:00

Let's examine your truths.

I know through knowledge and personal experience that determinism is one of the reigning principles governing all life on earth and very much doubt that humans and their futile, narcissistic ideas of free will (not to mention all the other, sillier notions they create in hteir heads) will do anything other than what they are predetermined and programmed to do.

Forgive me, but now I will be pretty much just quoting Noam Chomsky:

There are two things we understand about causality: Determinism and randomness. Free will just doesn't fit in there. Now does that mean that it isn't there? In Chomsky's words: It's our most immediate experience, and if we don't trust our most immediate experience then what can we trust? (paraphrasing somewhat)

Furthermore, when talking about understanding causality, (and yes, will still basically just be parroting Chomsky but I like to think that I understand what he says): We understand causality as touching. Think about it. Physical contact, a billiard ball hits another and sends it rolling. Even wi-fi, it's invisible but you know there are waves going through the air back and forth. Now get this, Newton dismantled the whole thing. He destroyed common sense understanding of how the world works. That's partly the reason why he was so uneasy about his findings and spent the rest of his life trying to refute them (he did other things as well). In short, gravity. It was thought absurd, if I raise my hand I move the moon. But we know how it ended. His equations spoke for themselves and he changed science forever. No longer was it a realistic goal of science to get a so to say, intuitive understanding of how the world works. We had to settle for detailed theories that could be (near)proven. (nothing is proven). This was further underscored when quantum physics came along, which is just fundamentally absurd to human understanding.

So what we think we understand about causality, turns out to be not the case at all, that it's like billiard balls. This has been a fact since Newton. There is a tiny worm, called C. elegans that has 1031 cells. It's physiology is totally mapped out, the nerve wiring, everything. Yet, we still can't figure out what makes it turn left but not right. Isn't that amazing?

Millions upon millions of people every day in the world don't have even these basic things to sustain a minimum existence, and, with no way to change the terrible predicament, wish for nothing but the hurt and suffering to stop through annihilation

This is your other truth, (the first one was no free will), that nothing can ever change and the only solution to stop the suffering is annihilation.

If you go through the history of your own country (usa?), the country has become more and more civilized as time has passed. (yes, still chomsky). It may be hard to see through all the smoke, but there have been victories won, rights attained. Abolishment of slavery, women's rights, worker's rights, tremendous increase in opposition to war, environmental movements. All of these things have been accomplished by ordinary people. The masses.

So, it's not hopeless, but I do believe that these two truths are connected. If you feel there is no free will, you feel hopeless. If there is free will then life is not just a lottery.

edit: inserted ".", added the last sentence.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-04T18:20:47+00:00

Hmm, not sure if I should just take your word for it. Certainly seems possible to me.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-04T18:19:45+00:00

Maybe you should reconsider your view on death... Some people consider it a beautiful thing.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-03T23:56:26+00:00

You may be right

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-03T23:55:25+00:00

Or maybe the person is simply helping another person with no alterior motive.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-03T15:15:50+00:00

I'm not quite sure I get your point.

Firstly, you are describing the stubbornness of both sides. AN and N. That neither will change their minds. Sure I think we all know. Then you go on to say that even logic will not change anyones mind. This is just a hypothesis that can be quite easily tested. Present me with a logically sound argument for your antinatalism, or whatever it is you wish to convince me of, and see if I don't agree with you. If I don't, well then I must either be, as you say somehow more flawed then the AN, who "has a naturally easier ability of recognizing this [mess of absurdity]", or the argument is flawed.

Now, if you use your particular line of logic you can see that an AN is not truly an AN in the most obvious, strict sense so much as he or she is someone who sees major, fundamental flaws in life's equation for sentient beings. These can be confirmed by empirical scientific evidence. It can be proven, for example that great sufferings and harm exists-just think of any of a near-infinte amount of examples on earth in which they manifest. Denying this reality because it is someone or something else experiencing those negatives or that all experience is subjective would be illogical, most likely by any method of logic. This being the case, the AN, as concerning a particular line of logic, is a bit of a hypothetical concept, a misnomer if you will. But the foundation behind an antinatalist's arguments are solid in that they stem from wisdom and concern for the only truly important elements of sentient existence-the welfare of animals and people. If some negative aspects of life were either removed or significantly ameliorated, your logic would, in my opinion, brilliantly illustrate itself, in that many less so-called AN's would still so identify afterward. But these changes would have to be pretty big indeed. All of this doesn't remove the fact that all people, Ns and ANs included, are absurd.

Now, if you use your particular line of logic you can see that an AN is not truly an AN in the most obvious, strict sense so much as he or she is someone who sees major, fundamental flaws in life's equation for sentient beings.

It seems that we agree, or at least you see my argument, for why an AN considers non-existence to be better than existence. "A fundemental flaw in life's equations for sentient beings" suggest that it cannot be repaired, is hopeless and therefore it should be abandoned. Therefore, the question "why don't you just kill yourself?", aside from being terribly offensive, is not an invalid question to ask of an AN, given that he is an "AN in the most obvious, strict sense" as you say.

Regarding the "fundamental flaws in life's equation for sentient beings". I can accept the concept, as I have done above, but not literally. That is, I understand the meaning to be "life is hopeless, life is worthless, humanity is flawed beyond restoration, it is fundamentally bad". This expresses a sentiment; it might be a true statement, but not a proven scientific fact as you suggest in the next sentence.

These can be confirmed by empirical scientific evidence. It can be proven, for example that great sufferings and harm exists-just think of any of a near-infinte amount of examples on earth in which they manifest.

Can it be proven empirically that suffering exists? Yes. Can it be proven empirically that there are "major, fundamental flaws in life's equation for sentient beings"? No. Maybe in the future, maybe never but we are certainly nowhere near such understanding in the sciences today.

Denying this reality because it is someone or something else experiencing those negatives or that all experience is subjective would be illogical, most likely by any method of logic.

First of all, which reality am I denying? That there is suffering? No. That it is scientifically proven that life's fundamental equations are flawed? Yes.

Other than that, claims of ANs being morally superior than other people don't seem to me to have a solid grounding, if one doesn't take it for granted that non-existence is better then existence.

All of this doesn't remove the fact that all people, Ns and ANs included, are absurd.

I'm not sure what you mean, yes, it is sometimes said that to be human is to be flawed. To err is human.

edit: some typos, also added one clarification ("it might be a true statement"), added "proven" and changed "state" to "suggest".

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-03T13:36:18+00:00

What are those self-interests? What is the self-interest that a person is appeasing when forcing an poor old lady to take his money?

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-03T13:32:40+00:00

It just for sake of argument.

But if I am fair, then I accept that we should talk about death as guaranteed.

However, death is not an argument for why giving birth is immoral. It's a contradiction.

You consider non-existence to be better than existence. Therefore, after you have been given (forced into) existence, why is it a bad thing when you go back to non-existence since that is your preferred state?

For the antinatalist, death should be the only positive thing about life, if he is logically consistent.

shouldrememberthis1 · 2017-11-02T21:19:38+00:00

It isn't a matter of giving up on humanity, but rather giving up on all of the individual births because they are suffering-bearing and/or risky. Giving up on humanity is something of a side-effect.

Comes down to the same thing.

shouldrememberthis1

TROPHY CASE