True Left
Ideology => True Left vs False Left => Topic started by: guest55 on September 28, 2021, 11:47:14 am
-
SCHOPENHAUER: Why Having Children is Wrong (Antinatalism)
Antinatalism is the philosophical belief that assigns a negative value to birth. Antinatalists believe that having children is morally wrong and that one shouldn’t do it. There are a variety of possible ethical arguments to make, but the general tone of the antinatalist position is that existence itself has a negative value. In other words, that it’s better to not exist at all. If non-existence is preferable to existence, then it follows that it’s morally wrong to create new life and doom another being to a life of suffering.
This video is not about antinatalism in general. Rather, we’re taking a look at Schopenhauer’s position on this question. There seems to be a great misconception regarding Schopenhauer’s views on procreation.
There is this idea that Schopenhauer was not a complete antinatalist. One philosophy magazine, for example, called Schopenhauer a “proto-antinatalist.” While it’s definitely true that Schopenhauer directly influenced those philosophers who are most famously associated with antinatalism today, like Emil Cioran, in this video we want to argue that there is nothing half-baked about Schopenhauer’s antinatalism. In other words, we want to argue that Schopenhauer was a full-fledged antinatalist, even if the term did not exist at the time.
The two arguments presented in this video take us to the origin of suffering an Schopenhauer's ethical recommendations.
We take some ideas from Arthur Schopenhauer's main work, The World as Will and Representation, and read between the lines a bit to find out Schopenhauer's reasons for his anti-natalist views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xk5Q8H5ma3o
Comments:
Until the world is paradise and no evil upon it, I will not put kids on this slaughter house 🐑
I decided in my early teens that I wouldn't have children, the phrase I used was "the misery stops with me". Nice to. have that sentiment dignified by a great philosopher.
Love your children enough not to create them!
I brought you into a world of pain and suffering because I love you!!!
I love my daughter very much, but look at the world right now? If you are a parent do you not feel a little guilty for bringing them into this absolute madness?
No, most obviously don't!!!
I had a decent childhood but realized that life began to suck towards the end of my youth and adulthood. Can’t bring myself to recycle all that pain again.
People always tell me that having a child is the most joyful thing they’ve ever done, and I won’t feel true joy until I’ve had a baby. They say that, yet I have done many things that have made me happy, like rescuing animals or helping others. So far, I think I have lived a good life without children and I don’t feel like I’m missing anything, but the people who constantly remind me that I don’t want kids keep trying to justify their decision to procreate. I have seen parents who wish death on their own children, or are depressed and almost suicidal and they still insist bringing a child into this world was a good idea. No thanks, I’d rather adopt someone who needs a home, or not have any at all.
Apparently, you have to hang around anti-natalist videos if you're looking for higher-quality people....
I suspect most people who claim they want children have children to satisfy their own egos. They don't actually love children.
-
OLD CONTENT
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287
Indian man to sue parents for giving birth to him
A 27-year-old Indian man plans to sue his parents for giving birth to him without his consent.
Mumbai businessman Raphael Samuel told the BBC that it's wrong to bring children into the world because they then have to put up with lifelong suffering.
Mr Samuel, of course, understands that our consent can't be sought before we are born, but insists that "it was not our decision to be born".
This is a good start.
So as we didn't ask to be born, we should be paid for the rest of our lives to live, he argues.
Here is where I begin to worry. I am opposed to the notion that money should be considered acceptable compensation for initated violence, for if it were, the wealthy could commit as much initiated violence as they want and are willing to pay for afterwards. It also spiritually degrades the victim to be satisfied with merely monetary compensation rather than actual revenge.
I would prefer a case of the form: the state should not protect from retaliatory violence those who have initiated violence, nor punish their victims who seek revenge against them.
A demand like this could cause a rift within any family, but Mr Samuel says he gets along very well with his parents (both of whom are lawyers) and they appear to be dealing with it with a lot of humour.
In a statement, his mother Kavita Karnad Samuel explained her response to "the recent upheaval my son has created".
"I must admire my son's temerity to want to take his parents to court knowing both of us are lawyers. And if Raphael could come up with a rational explanation as to how we could have sought his consent to be born, I will accept my fault," she said.
Kavita is an idiot. She had no way to seek his consent. That is precisely why she should not have given birth to him! It is not only the person who could have sought consent but chose not to who is at fault. To proceed when seeking consent is impossible is just as ethically faulted.
Mr Samuel's belief is rooted in what's called anti-natalism - a philosophy that argues that life is so full of misery that people should stop procreating immediately.
This, he says, would gradually phase out humanity from the Earth and that would also be so much better for the planet.
"There's no point to humanity. So many people are suffering. If humanity is extinct, Earth and animals would be happier. They'll certainly be better off. Also no human will then suffer. Human existence is totally pointless."
Why limit this view to humans? Are non-human children not also born without their consent? And while they will clearly be better off with humans gone, they will nevertheless still be trapped in the cycle of reproduction (along with predation, competition and everything else intrinsic to material existence long before humans arrived).
A year ago, he created a Facebook page, Nihilanand, which features posters that show his images with a huge fake beard, an eye-mask and anti-natalist messages like "Isn't forcing a child into this world and forcing it to have a career, kidnapping, and slavery?" Or, "Your parents had you instead of a toy or a dog, you owe them nothing, you are their entertainment."
Mr Samuel says he remembers first having anti-natalist thoughts when he was five.
"I was a normal kid. One day I was very frustrated and I didn't want to go to school but my parents kept asking me to go. So I asked them: 'Why did you have me?' And my dad had no answer. I think if he'd been able to answer, maybe I wouldn't have thought this way."
The truth is that his father gave birth to him as a way to psychologically escape the shameful conclusion that he himself was a victim of birth too cowardly to avenge himself. Victims of violence often try to convince themselves that they were never victims by violating someone else in the same way and telling themselves such behaviour is fine, thereby psychologically relieving themselves of the duty to go after the original violator, but at the cost of creating a new innocent victim. This is called tradition.
The only way to end this is to return all violence to its origin.
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/gnosticism/
---
"Non-human animals have children for their instincts."
That is a massive generalization that fails to see animals as individuals. Would you also apply generalization of similar scale to humans?
"They can't resist their instincts and stop reproducing unless they are sterile."
This is not true. For example, the remaining pandas in the world are not technically sterile but have so little interest in reproducing that zookeepers have to routinely employ violent means of impregnation to get them to reproduce. In other species, there could well be many individuals per generation with similarly little interest in reproducing, except it is harder to spot them because they would surely be a minority within their populations, and in each generational cycle their bloodlines will be the ones terminated precisely because of lack of interest in reproducing.
"The obvious way is lengthening own lives."
If life extension becomes a commodity, it will open up a whole new can of worms as the temptation of greed will grow geometrically when people consider that they could keep their accumulated assets indefinitely. The likely result will be total abandonment of spiritual values, and thus total victory for Yahweh:
longevityalliance.org/?q=idea-life-extension-entering-mainstream-israel
www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2014/5/european-biogerontology-conference-in-beer-sheva-israel
www.israel21c.org/israel-fast-becoming-world-hub-of-aging-industry/
www.longevityisrael.org/scientific-board/
This is why we have to nuke Israel ASAP.
---
"I saw that even an autocratic state like China couldn't prohibit panda's forced reproduction"
No one here claims that an autocracy automatically produces good policies. But as long as autocracy is the form of government, all it takes for good policies is the emergence of a noble ruler, which is far more statistically likely than the emergence of a noble majority.
If Western colonialism had never occurred, pandas would surely be peacefully extinct by now. China is of course foolish to be influenced by Western thought, but it is inconceivable that China would have forced pandas to reproduce in absence of Western influence. It goes without saying that artificial insemination is a Western invention:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_insemination#History
The first reported case of artificial insemination by donor occurred in 1884: Dr. William H. Pancoast, a professor in Philadelphia, took sperm from his "best looking" student to inseminate an anesthetized woman.[2] The case was reported 25 years later in a medical journal.[3] The sperm bank was developed in Iowa starting in the 1920s in research conducted by University of Iowa medical school researchers Jerome Sherman and Raymond Bunge.[4]
---
False Left hypocrisy so shameless that only a Westerner can perform it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfpkPXPI0_E
If this piece of **** had any sincerity, he would have voluntarily refrained from reproducing in the first place (like I am doing FFS!).
Anyone who says they are "sorry" but who is not voluntarily refraining from reproducing is lying (and insulting our intelligence).
---
"like I am doing FFS!"
Why so? As an Aryan, are you not supposed to continue your lineage for the purpose of Aryanizing the population?
---
As an ideologist, I have to prove I am not using my own theory as an excuse to let myself break the rule that I call for imposing on everyone. Whoever is allowed by the state to reproduce must not know that a selection process is taking place at all, until after the decision has been made, as I was explaining here:
The only behaviour that can be used reliably to decide who should be allowed to reproduce is behaviour during early childhood, prior to those being selected becoming aware that state control over reproduction even exists.
If a National Socialist state with a competent Aryanization administrator existed when I was still an infant, I am sure it would have chosen me for reproduction (since the selection criteria are largely based on my own early childhood behaviour). But that is academic. In reality I am the one designing the selection process for a future National Socialist state which does not currently exist. The Aryanization project begins only after we achieve such a state.
---
It is common to hear the slogan: "In a peaceful society, the state should have a monopoly on legal violence." I agree with this statement. But if so, then any society where people can reproduce at whim without being punished cannot be considered peaceful, since reproduction is violence against the child being born, and thus the state which does not control legal reproduction cannot be said to have a monopoly on legal violence.
---
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DtkEtZOUUAAvwUW.jpg)
why are they so hellbent on reproduction? I've seen many of them saying the solution to their own made-up problems or to the decrease of the "white" population to have more white babies. To them, having children equals goodness or good intent because they appeal to nature. They also use it as an indicator of a woman's value (to them, her fertility and submission). It does not matter to them how the child feels, ever. It never will to them. I just won't ever get it.
-
A woman conceived through **** who campaigned for nine years to bring her father to justice has won a prestigious award.
The 45-year-old can only be referred to as Daisy to protect the identity of her birth mother, who was **** 46 years ago at the age of 13 by Carvel Bennett, now 74. He was convicted in July 2021 at Birmingham crown court and sentenced to 11 years in jail.
Daisy was awarded the Emma Humphreys memorial prize, which recognises women who make outstanding contributions towards ending male violence. She was announced as the winner on Sunday at conference in Portsmouth for FiLiA – a female-led volunteer organisation working for the liberation of women.
Daisy, who is black, believes that one of the reasons why it took so long to bring Bennett to justice was because of her and her birth mother’s skin colour. Although her birth mother named Bennett after she became pregnant with Daisy after the ****, no action was taken by the authorities to charge him. Daisy, who was adopted as a baby, spent nine years campaigning to get Bennett prosecuted after tracking him down herself.
[...]
Police told Daisy that even though she described herself as “a walking crime scene”, as her DNA evidence confirmed Bennett as her father, it would not be possible to proceed with a case against him without her birth mother providing evidence.
[...]
Daisy is now campaigning for a change in the law so that children conceived through **** can be recognised as secondary victims of the crime along with the primary victim, their mothers.
[...]
“There is still so much silence on the issue of **** conception. It appears to be one of the last taboos in relation to violence against women and girls. For those of us who were ****-conceived, it’s a huge struggle to come to terms with your paternity and in turn one’s sense of self and identity. We are left to carry the shame and stigma of the act of violence that created us.”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2021/oct/17/woman-conceived-through-wins-award-for-campaign-to-convict-father
Mathematically, going back far enough it is nearly certain everyone alive has at least one rapist in their family tree.
-
If we think about it carefully, the only circumstance in which ideal love can exist between one biological parent and their offspring is if that parent had been **** by the other biological parent, thus making themselves and the offspring fellow victims of the same violence. Whereas any biological parent who claims to love a child that they themselves voluntarily conceived is lying, while any child who still loves a biological parent after finding out that the parent had voluntarily conceived themselves is a slave.
From this angle, ****-conceived children are actually more emotionally fortunate, as they at least get a theoretical chance to have a good relationship with one biological parent without compromising on Original Nobility. In contrast, children conceived from sex that was consensual on the part of both biological parents must hate both biological parents in order to maintain Original Nobility.
-
Muammar Gaddafi,, the former leader of Libya had 8 biological children. What did he do for Libyans having children?
Surviving members of his family include his widow, the mother of seven of eight biological children.
https://www.ft.com/content/1ae9103e-3537-11e5-b05b-b01debd57852
-
I'm confused as well; didn't former team members such as JAM Jr and AA have children too?
-
We support leaders like Gaddafi for pragmatic reasons. Just because we speak highly of people like Gaddafi when compared to other western leaders, that doesn't mean we have zero criticisms about the people we currently support, or believe that they're people without flaw. JAM for example, has already been criticized here and over on the main site by AS. It's about uplifting the right people at the right time, and looking at how these people contribute to the dissemination of our ideology. I thought that was pretty obvious. We can focus on scrutinizing the flaws of people like Gaddafi and JAM once we've dealt with the common enemy we all share.
-
Gadaffi was not a National Socialist. JAM, who proclaimed to be a national socialist, and who was endorsed for doing so by the leader of this movement, is a different subject.
-
We know nothing about you RP, nor do we ask you to tell us about yourself. When people are willing to be open about their flaws and shortcomings knowing they will be persecuted for doing so I find it admirable. Who fears persecution for the shortcomings and flaws the most in this world? Constantly digging into them for these flaws after they have shared them comes across as nothing more than ego on the part of the person doing so in my humble opinion.
You are an identity on an online forum RP. None of us know you, as you know none of us personally. You do not know what any of us have been through or the lives we have been forced to live, or the circumstances that have been forced upon us against our own wills. People who atleast try to strive to be better and are actually willing to engage in the internal struggle of making their Aryan blood dominant, if they have any at all, are already much better people than those that do not care at all.
Lest we forget, there is no Aryan National Socialist state in existence in this world currently, the Aryanization process has not yet even begun except a select handful of people who are willing to subject themselves to that process. I find this admirable as stated before.
I think we can also be pretty certain that anyone who is willing to be persecuted here is probably not Jewish!
You also have no way of understanding how guilty and bad someone feels about their flaws. If they are willing to share them here then they must weigh heavily on their minds on some level, no? So what service do you provide by constantly reminding them of that which they are already struggling with and are obviously aware of through their own self diagnosis?
Let us not forget the parable of the mustard seed spoken of by the ancients either....
-
@rp Gaddafi wasn't a National Socialist, but Aryanism still shares a decent amount in common with other real world ideologies. So in that respect, he played a key role in promulgating universalist anti-Zionism. That's basically what I'm referring to when I talk about people who aren't necessarily Aryanists. A lot of the ideas and achievements of other ideologies are transferable to ours.
-
I would have preferred spending my childhood in isolation/quarantine over how I actually spent it: under tyranny.
I'm finding that if you really treasure your privacy and solitude westerners will attempt to impose themselves on you by trying to insert themselves in your life even though you never invited them into your life in the first place. It seems the more you try to get away from barbarians the more those barbarians want to be in your life! WTF!?!?!
Here's another Westerner on parenthood:
What Becoming a Parent Really Does to Your Happiness
Research has found that having children is terrible for quality of life—but the truth about what parenthood means for happiness is a lot more complicated.
Obviously in a sane world if you were planning on having children because you thought the children would make you happier then you are function on nothing more than your own ego, which is not surprising considering Western civilization is built on elevating the human ego above all else. See also: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/ancient-world/antropocentricism-the-most-dangerous-ideology-in-the-world/
Few choices are more important than whether to have children, and psychologists and other social scientists have worked to figure out what having kids means for happiness. Some of the most prominent scholars in the field have argued that if you want to be happy, it’s best to be childless. Others have pushed back, pointing out that a lot depends on who you are and where you live. But a bigger question is also at play: What if the rewards of having children are different from, and deeper than, happiness?
Again, in a sane world if your primary interest in having children revolves around the impression that a person will be rewarded for bring kids into this world then should you really be allowed to reproduce in the first place? DO THESE FUCKEN WESTERNERS, AND ESPECIALLY RIGHTISTS, EVEN CARE AT ALL ABOUT THE FACT THAT ANY CHILD BORN ANYWHERE IMPACTS THOSE ALREADY LIVING HERE ON THE PLANET, AND WHO WERE ALSO FORCED TO DO SO WITHOUT THEIR CONSENT? IT IS LITERALLY ANOTHER MOUTH TO FEED AND A HUMAN THAT MUST BE CARED FOR BY A STATE!!!
TALK ABOUT SELFISH PEOPLE! SHOULD WE EXPECT DIFFERENT FROM BARBARIANS THOUGH?
The early research is decisive: Having kids is bad for quality of life. In one study, the psychologist Daniel Kahneman and his colleagues asked about 900 employed women to report, at the end of each day, every one of their activities and how happy they were when they did them. They recalled being with their children as less enjoyable than many other activities, such as watching TV, shopping, or preparing food. Other studies find that when a child is born, parents experience a decrease in happiness that doesn’t go away for a long time, in addition to a drop in marital satisfaction that doesn’t usually recover until the children leave the house. As the Harvard professor Dan Gilbert puts it, “The only symptom of empty nest syndrome is nonstop smiling.”
After all, having children, particularly when they are young, involves financial struggle, sleep deprivation, and stress. For mothers, there is also in many cases the physical strain of pregnancy and breastfeeding. And children can turn a cheerful and loving romantic partnership into a zero-sum battle over who gets to sleep and work and who doesn’t. As the Atlantic staff writer Jennifer Senior notes in her book, All Joy and No Fun, children provoke a couple’s most frequent arguments—“more than money, more than work, more than in-laws, more than annoying personal habits, communication styles, leisure activities, commitment issues, bothersome friends, sex.” Someone who doesn’t understand this is welcome to spend a full day with an angry 2-year-old (or a sullen 15-year-old); they’ll find out what she means soon enough.
But, as often happens in psychology, although some research provided simple findings—in this case, “having children makes you unhappy”—other efforts arrived at more complicated conclusions. For one, the happiness hit is worse for some people than for others. One study finds that fathers ages 26 to 62 actually get a happiness boost, while young or single parents suffer the greatest loss. And crucially, there are geographic differences. A 2016 paper looking at the happiness levels of people with and without children in 22 countries found that the extent to which children make you happy is influenced by whether your country has child-care policies such as paid parental leave. Parents from Norway and Hungary, for instance, are happier than childless couples in those countries—but parents from Australia and Great Britain are less happy than their childless peers. The country with the greatest happiness drop after you have children? The United States.
In a sane world would Norwegians and Hungarians be allowed to reproduce at all? See also: https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/hungary-v4/
Aren't we all so glad that Westerners in Hungary are creating more of those types and parents get paid leave for doing so?
Children make some happy and others miserable; the rest fall somewhere in between—it depends, among other factors, on how old you are, whether you are a mother or a father, and where you live. But a deep puzzle remains: Many people would have had happier lives and marriages had they chosen not to have kids—yet they still describe parenthood as the “best thing they’ve ever done.” Why don’t we regret having children more?
One possibility is a phenomenon called memory distortion. When we think about our past experiences, we tend to remember the peaks and forget the mundane awfulness in between. Senior frames it like this: “Our experiencing selves tell researchers that we prefer doing the dishes—or napping, or shopping, or answering emails—to spending time with our kids … But our remembering selves tell researchers that no one—and nothing—provides us with so much joy as our children. It may not be the happiness we live day to day, but it’s the happiness we think about, the happiness we summon and remember, the stuff that makes up our life-tales.”
These are plausible-enough ideas, and I don’t reject them. But other theories about why people don’t regret parenthood actually have nothing to do with happiness—at least not in a simple sense.
One involves attachment. Most parents love their children, and it would seem terrible to admit that you would be better off if someone you loved didn’t exist. More than that, you genuinely prefer a world with your kids in it. This can put parents in the interesting predicament of desiring a state that doesn’t make them as happy as the alternative. In his book Midlife, the MIT professor Kieran Setiya expands on this point. Modifying an example from the philosopher Derek Parfit, he asks readers to imagine a situation in which, if you and your partner were to conceive a child before a certain time, the child would have a serious, though not fatal, medical problem, such as chronic joint pain. If you wait, the child will be healthy. For whatever reason, you choose not to wait. You love your child and, though he suffers, he is happy to be alive. Do you regret your decision?
Does the author who wrote this article not see the contradiction in the above paragraph? If the second part of the sentence that is in bold is true, then can the first part of the sentence also be true? Only if you realize that if you really loved your children in the you would never have brought them into this world in the first place. I think Westerners confuse EGO with LOVE more often than not!
That’s a complicated question. Of course it would have been easier to have a kid without this condition. But if you’d waited, you’d have a different child, and this baby (then boy, then man) whom you love wouldn’t exist. It was a mistake, yes, but perhaps a mistake that you don’t regret. The attachment we have to an individual can supersede an overall decrease in our quality of life, and so the love we usually have toward our children means that our choice to bring them into existence has value above and beyond whatever effect they have on our happiness.
This relates to a second point, which is that there’s more to life than happiness. When I say that raising my sons is the best thing I’ve ever done, I’m not saying that they gave me pleasure in any simple day-to-day sense, and I’m not saying that they were good for my marriage. I’m talking about something deeper, having to do with satisfaction, purpose, and meaning. It’s not just me. When you ask people about their life’s meaning and purpose, parents say that their lives have more meaning than those of nonparents. A study by the social psychologist Roy Baumeister and his colleagues found that the more time people spent taking care of children, the more meaningful they said their life was—even though they reported that their life was no happier.
Raising children, then, has an uncertain connection to pleasure but may connect to other aspects of a life well lived, satisfying our hunger for attachment, and for meaning and purpose. The writer Zadie Smith puts it better than I ever could, describing having a child as a “strange admixture of terror, pain, and delight.” Smith, echoing the thoughts of everyone else who has seriously considered these issues, points out the risk of close attachments: “Isn’t it bad enough that the beloved, with whom you have experienced genuine joy, will eventually be lost to you? Why add to this nightmare the child, whose loss, if it ever happened, would mean nothing less than your total annihilation?” But this annihilation reflects the extraordinary value of such attachments; as the author Julian Barnes writes of grief, quoting a friend, “It hurts just as much as it is worth.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2021/11/does-having-kids-make-you-happy/620576/?utm_source=pocket-newtab
So, according to this author their final conclusion is that you must be attached to this world in order to find purpose and meaning in it, and you should seek attachment through others? Besides Westerners and their sychophant's, does anyone believe that this is actually sound advice?
-
"Only if you realize that if you really loved your children in the you would never have brought them into this world in the first place."
Alongside (but independent of) your entirely correct point, it is also worth pointing out that someone who really loved their spouse would never want to reproduce with them. I draw attention to this point because some (unromantic) antinatalists think antinatalism needs to bash romantic love as they (being too unromantic to know the difference between romantic love and Yahwist pair-bonding) wrongly believe it leads to the desire to reproduce. I, on the other hand, have always defended romantic love because I understand that it is actually a path to antinatalism. What we need to do is stop letting the unromantic get away with mislabelling mere Yahwist pair-bonding as "romantic love"!
"you must be attached to this world in order to find purpose and meaning in it, and you should seek attachment through others?"
Without the sugarcoating, the ultimate reason why people reproduce is to run away from facing the fact that they themselves were victims of their parents' decision to reproduce. Lacking the courage to admit the painful truth that they are victims of initiated violence, they would rather reeanact on a new generation of victims what was done to themselves. Thus the cycle replicates itself and the total quantity of initiated violence and the total number of victims keeps growing. Yet somehow this is considered more acceptable than retaliatory violence, which is all it would take to break the cycle.
"Westerners and their sychophant's"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQrKFAAlxO4
-
https://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/thailand-penal-code.html
From Thailand's Criminal Code:
Section 71 If the offences as provided in Section 334 to Section 336, first paragraph, and Section 341 to Section 364 are committed by a husband against his wife, or by a wife against her husband, the offender shall not be punished.
If the aforesaid offences are committed by an ascendant against his descendant, or by a descendant against his ascendant, or by a brother or sister of the same parents against each other, the offences shall, even though not provided by the law as compoundable offences, be deemed as compoundable offences. Moreover, the Court may inflict less punishment to any extent than that provided by the law for such offences.
Section 289 Whoever commits murder on:
An ascendant;
An official in the exercise of his functions, or by reason of exercising or having exercised his functions;
A person who assists an official in the exercise of his functions, or by reason of the fact that such person will assist or has assisted the said official;
The other person by premeditation;
The other person by employing torture or acts of cruelty;
The other person for the purpose of preparing or facilitating the commission of the other offence; or
The other person for the purpose of securing the benefit obtained through the other offence, or concealing the other offence or escaping punishment for the other offence committed by him, shall be punished with death.
-
I, on the other hand, have always defended romantic love because I understand that it is actually a path to antinatalism. What we need to do is stop letting the unromantic get away with mislabelling mere Yahwist pair-bonding as "romantic love"!
I recall reading a quote by Oscar Wilde or someone which implied this way of thinking. I believe quote was defending "homosexuality" against accusations of being "unnatural" or degenerate, by replying that he in fact believed it was a higher form of love than conventional "heterosexual" pairings, with the implication being it was precisely because the pairing would not "naturally" produce children. (And, because, especially during those times, one could be sure a "gay" pair was together out of real love, rather than being socially forced into a marriage after an "unexpected" pregnancy or other circumstance).
-
Lacking the courage to admit the painful truth that they are victims of initiated violence, they would rather reeanact on a new generation of victims what was done to themselves. Thus the cycle replicates itself and the total quantity of initiated violence and the total number of victims keeps growing. Yet somehow this is considered more acceptable than retaliatory violence, which is all it would take to break the cycle.
I was contemplating recently one immense disservice ancient humans did to humanity was allowing freed slaves to reproduce, because now we all have slavishness in our blood to varying degrees. This thought then provoked the realization of how evil a tranquilizer dart actually is, especially when used against non-humans. One minute you're walking through the grass, blink, and when your eyes open again you've somehow magically teleported into a cage, no chance to resist your enslavement and you're being tormented by humans.
-
Young adults worry it’s ‘morally wrong’ to have children, Earth Day study finds
Climate change concerns are influencing Gen Z and millennials’ reproductive decisions, research shows
[...]
The most common concern in the new University of Arizona report was overconsumption, with the Gen Z and millennial respondents worrying about how their children would contribute to climate change by adding to the carbon footprint, as well as overusing resources like food and water that could become more scarce in the future. Indeed, the World Health Organization warned last July that almost 690 million people went hungry in 2019 — up by 10 million from 2018, and by nearly 60 million over the previous five years. And that was before the COVID-19 pandemic of the past year, which could push 130 million more people into chronic hunger.
Overpopulation was another popular concern among those surveyed in the new report, with some young adults saying they felt that having more than two children would be selfish because they would be “over-replacing” themselves and their partner. What’s more, many were considering adoption as a “low-carbon alternative” to starting a family.
Finally, many of the young adults choosing to go childless said that uncertainty over the future was also discouraging them from starting families. Many expressed feelings of guilt, as if they would be doing something “morally or ethically wrong” if they brought babies into a world with such a possibly bleak future, the paper added. But some subjects did express optimism that future generations could make things better, although that would be a heavy burden to place on the next generation.
[...]
To have babies, or not to have babies, is a question that Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.) infamously raised in an Instagram live stream in 2019. “Basically, there’s a scientific consensus that the lives of children are going to be very difficult,” she said. “And it does lead, I think, young people to have a legitimate question: Is it okay to still have children?”
Her comments drew backlash, particularly among conservative pundits like Fox News host Steve Hilton, who referred to it as a “no-child policy” and called it “disturbingly authoritarian, even fascistic.”
https://www.marketwatch.com/story/young-adults-worry-its-morally-wrong-to-have-children-earth-day-study-finds-11619110785
This suggests they would be fine with having kids if it wasn't for the factors above. But, at least we're on the correct track for people to eventually figure out it is always morally wrong to bring a child onto the planet, no matter what the material circumstances are.
I can see why some might think this way, but it seems like it will end up being a losing strategy for the environment. A child who has a deep respect for the environment could go on to make meaningful changes to help in their life. Right-wingers will be popping out 10 kids. I don't know about you, but I want smart people to be the ones raising children.
https://old.reddit.com/r/environment/comments/r5tltj/young_adults_worry_its_morally_wrong_to_have/hmpdyqq/
Which, of course, is why the state must be in control of reproduction.
-
Apparently the antinatalist Reddit forum has one of the strongest overlaps with the (left-wing) antiwork Reddit forum:
(https://i.redd.it/5eeqz250yi881.png)
https://subredditstats.com/subreddit-user-overlaps/antiwork
"Birth strike" and "I'm not going to create a future generation of corporate slaves" are common things people say on the antiwork forum.
-
I told you Francis is a False Leftist. Yes, he superficially supports taking in refugees, but then he supports natalism (even though every new child born will mean fewer resources for refugees who already exist):
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10371579/Pope-Francis-hits-selfish-couples-pets-instead-children.html
Pope Francis today hit out at 'selfish' couples who have pets instead of children as he called for parents to have more offspring to solve the West's 'demographic winter'.
Speaking on parenthood during a general audience at the Vatican, Francis lamented that pets 'sometimes take the place of children' in society.
'Today... we see a form of selfishness,' said the pope. 'We see that some people do not want to have a child.
The absolute opposite is true. There is literally nothing more selfish than wanting to reproduce:
(https://i.gr-assets.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/hostedimages/1403140008i/10046084.jpg)
'Sometimes they have one, and that's it, but they have dogs and cats that take the place of children. This may make people laugh but it is a reality.'
Taking in already-existing homeless dogs and cats is a good thing (assuming you can give them a better life than they would have by remaining homeless). Breeding dogs and cats for the purpose of them becoming pets is as unethical as reproducing humans (though not as dangerous, as dogs and cats are incapable of building machines).
The practice, said the head of the world's 1.3 billion Catholics, 'is a denial of fatherhood and motherhood and diminishes us, takes away our humanity'.
Jesus himself did not reproduce, you moron. Jesus taught us to be like children. Children do not reproduce.
(https://media.ldscdn.org/images/media-library/bible-images-the-life-of-jesus-christ/picture-quotes/meme-bible-matthew-children-1341997-gallery.jpg)
He said couples should have more children to address the 'demographic winter' in much of the West and called for couples who can't have children to be open to adoption.
Adopting children who already exist is definitely better than adding even more children. Same as with dogs/cats. (If I can choose between adopting human children vs dog/cat children, though, I would choose the latter, as I probably don't have to worry about dog/cat children growing up to become machinists. If I had to adopt human children, I would adopt children from civilizations with the least history of machinism. (Which civilization has the most history of machinism? Hint: the one Francis is worried about!))
Thus, 'civilisation grows old without humanity because we lose the richness of fatherhood and motherhood, and it is the country that suffers', the pontiff said at the Paul VI Hall.
(https://memegenerator.net/img/instances/400x/61100690/if-any-man-come-to-me-and-hate-not-his-father-and-mother-and-wife-and-children-and-brethren-and-sist.jpg)
Francis is no Christian.
Francis has been photographed petting dogs, allowed a baby lamb to be draped over his shoulders during Epiphany in 2014 and even petted a tiger and a baby panther.
Did any of them consent? Here is a picture from the article:
(https://i.dailymail.co.uk/1s/2022/01/05/14/52575647-10371579-image-a-12_1641392632605.jpg)
Note how the lamb's legs are being restrained. The lamb obviously didn't want to be on Francis' shoulders. Here is a video of the tiger who also clearly didn't want to be petted:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdwuYoqtDxU
Francis, who does not even see a problem with initiating violence on those who already exist, would obviously see no problem with the initiated violence of bringing children into existence by reproduction. And one more thing:
http://aryanism.net/blog/aryan-sanctuary/soul-searching-within-the-churches/comment-page-1/#comment-147035
For the record, I consider Francis utterly evil, and if we were in government he would be executed in as slow and painful a manner as possible:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/pope-francis-parents-ok-smack-children-dignity
Francis worships Yahweh. Even our enemies have noticed that Francis and another Yahweh-worshipper are in agreement on this issue:
https://vdare.com/posts/pope-francis-and-elon-musk-call-for-more-babies
(https://vdare.com/public_upload/publication/featured_image/56644/VDARE-musk-pope-baby.jpg)
(Of course, Musk is more dangerous because he is a machinist.)
-
This person is known as the "pope" is so effing disgusting!!! Anyone who believes he is a follower of Jesus is a bigger fool than he himself even is!
The leader of the world’s 1.3 billion Catholics, Pope Francis, has caused a stir with his remarks on falling birth rates, warning people not to choose pets over having children.
During his weekly general audience at the Vatican he said: “Today … we see a form of selfishness. We see that some people do not want to have a child. Sometimes they have one, and that’s it, but they have dogs and cats that take the place of children.”
The pope claimed that having pets is “a denial of fatherhood and motherhood and diminishes us, takes away our humanity”, resulting in a civilisation that grows old without humanity because of the absence of “richness” from parenthood.
He also urged couples who face trouble having biological children to consider adoption and not to be afraid. “Having a child is always a risk, but there is more risk in not having a child,” he added.
The leader’s comments attracted criticism on social media with many arguing that having children is a personal choice, and some pointing out the irony that priests are not permitted to marry or have children. Photo: Reuters
(https://yt3.ggpht.com/dtgvDEdHlYfR16uqe7_9WksKOYLvmqyQh5pGYcTUvZRwTPfjbFbyl19jiNzS4BFxSyt0t2I-IfD4Lg=s640-nd-v1)
When will the world finally wake up and realize we should have stopped listening to old "white" men especially a long long time ago!?!? This man is sick!
Here's a thought Westerner, maybe if you people weren't such sick people more good people would feel comfortable trying to raise a child in this world? Of course that thought will never cross a Westerner's mind....
-
https://www.wweek.com/news/2022/02/16/whos-behind-the-portland-billboards-demanding-people-stop-having-kids/
Willamette Week is a "left" leaning tabloid (it's in Portland after all). The first few paragraphs let you know the author is discomforted with this. "First amendment", "white supremacists", and "not a sick joke" give it away. This false leftism is why concentration camps are not being built to house and truly rehabilitate the homeless littering the streets.
Interestingly, the name Goldberg is behind these signs.
Unfortunately, the best article comment I could find is: If you don't have the million dollars it takes to get a kid from birth through a great college, don't have kids. You're just adding to the problem otherwise! America does not need more of an army of willfully ignorant imbeciles who will willingly become members of q-anon. If you can't afford to educate and enlighten your children for the future, don't have kids!
-
If you don't have the million dollars it takes to get a kid from birth through a great college, don't have kids.
A next generation exclusively descended from those in the current generation who today have a million dollars would be considerably qualitatively worse than a next generation of the same total number but selected randomly.
And looking into the future, wealth is likely to be increasingly be positively correlated with machinist talent. So allowing only the wealthy to reproduce will increasingly breed a race of machinists. This is a recipe for disaster.
America does not need more of an army of willfully ignorant imbeciles who will willingly become members of q-anon.
How many Haitian refugees have a million dollars? Yet how many Haitian refugees join QAnon?
-
A next generation exclusively descended from those in the current generation who today have a million dollars would be considerably qualitatively worse than a next generation of the same total number but selected randomly.
And looking into the future, wealth is likely to be increasingly be positively correlated with machinist talent. So allowing only the wealthy to reproduce will increasingly breed a race of machinists. This is a recipe for disaster.
If only the rich reproduced and the poor abstained, the pool of slaves would decrease which would increase the price of each slave. Eventually, the slaves die off resulting in the rich descendants trying to enslave each other. A disaster? Maybe for the them.
-
Eventually, the slaves die off resulting in the rich descendants trying to enslave each other. A disaster? Maybe for the them.
Assuming the entirety of non-elite individuals pledged to stop reproducing, I think that would only create significant pressure for the elites to develop sentient machines to replace the human labor force. If all non-elites stopped reproducing today, that would give the elites around 70 years to develop sentient machine slaves, which would be more than enough time if all of human effort were directed into its research. In reality, there is no way even a majority of non-elites would agree to cease reproducing, which would comfortably allow multiple lifetimes for the elites to develop such machines.
Or they could just do artificial insemination and we could end up with Brave New World:
The novel opens in the Central London Hatchery and Conditioning Centre. The year is a.f. 632 (632 years “after Ford”). The Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning is giving a group of students a tour of a factory that produces human beings and conditions them for their predestined roles in the World State. He explains to the boys that human beings no longer produce living offspring. Instead, surgically removed ovaries produce ova that are fertilized in artificial receptacles and incubated in specially designed bottles.
The Hatchery destines each fetus for a particular caste in the World State. The five castes are Alpha, Beta, Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon. Gamma, Delta, and Epsilon undergo the Bokanovsky Process, which involves shocking an egg so that it divides to form up to ninety-six identical embryos, which then develop into ninety-six identical human beings. The Alpha and Beta embryos never undergo this dividing process, which can weaken the embryos. The Director explains that the Bokanovsky Process facilitates social stability because the clones it produces are predestined to perform identical tasks at identical machines. The cloning process is one of the tools the World State uses to implement its guiding motto: “Community, Identity, Stability.”
https://www.sparknotes.com/lit/bravenew/section1/
Humans can pledge to cease from reproducing, but cells are powerless to resist:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/true-left-vs-right/western-civilization-sustainable-evil/msg10137/#msg10137
See the extreme violence shown in the video:
https://old.reddit.com/r/nextfuckinglevel/comments/reoq0w/a_person_being_conceived_ivf/
This is why slavemasters and bloodlines predisposed to exploiting/enslaving (which includes essentially every member of the elite and individuals with skillsets highly valued by the elite--e.g. machinists) must be eliminated before the bloodlines of average individuals, and especially before the bloodlines of individuals noble enough to voluntarily cease from reproducing.
-
I doubt this is real, but if it is, well done:
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FLmCqdbXoA0HwRC?format=jpg&name=large)
-
Should We Stop Having Babies? | Antinatalism Explored
Is it better never to have been? Some people believe it would indeed be better if no sentient life came into existence. Antinatalism is the philosophical viewpoint that procreation is morally wrong. And therefore, we should avoid it. Some antinatalists think only humans should stop having children; others believe that all sentient beings would be better off if they’d never existed. But isn’t it wrong to oppose the birth of children? Why would anybody be against the creation of new life? So, is having children bad? This video explores the philosophy of antinatalism (Should We Stop Having Babies? | Antinatalism Explored)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJ_8fw6-S8A
If we count all sentient life as 'people', is it really possible to "do unto others as you would want done unto you" in this world? Or, sooner than later is a person going to have to suffer so that another person may survive? THIS IS the fundamental problem with existence in the material realm, violence and suffering cannot be eradicated!
-
What does Aryanism/The True Left have to say about Aryanists, fellow travelers, and people with Aryan phenotypes reproducing? You guys previously stated that the state should control reproduction, so I assume there are exceptions to be made for these people?
-
People with Aryan phenotypes may or may not be heritably Aryan, as we have previously mentioned how phenotype has ceased to correlate perfectly with behavior due to racial mixing. So we would not always condone those individuals reproducing.
As for people with Aryan phenotypes who are heritably Aryan, Aryanists, and fellow travelers, I am not sure about Aryanism's position on this.
-
People with Aryan phenotypes may or may not be heritably Aryan, as we have previously mentioned how phenotype has ceased to correlate perfectly with behavior due to racial mixing. So we would not condone those individuals reproducing.
As for Aryanists and fellow travelers, I am not sure about Aryanism's position on this.
What does 90sRetroFan have to say anout Aryanists and fellow travelers reproducing?
-
A couple is suing their only son and his wife for not giving them a grandchild. Sanjeev and Sadhana Prasad, from the northern Indian state of Uttarakhand, filed a petition on the grounds of ‘mental harassment.’ They are demanding 50 million rupees (approx $645k) in compensation from their son Shrey Sagar, unless he and his wife of 6 years can provide them with a grandchild.
The Prasads’ legal representative told CNN their son has until next year to give them a grandchild. According to the petition, the couple says raising Shrey cost about 20 million rupees (approx $258k).
(https://yt3.ggpht.com/o7H_wfdX1B9HQibjaJSWGN-EXHqiqemz3zSyTFDZzRpV6jKJ7S8wmhrnF1q0yCfKY1BFjE3n07R8DA=s640-nd-v1)
Comment:
Like the rest of us, their son didn’t ask to be in this world. The cost to raise a child is irrelevant, that was the parents’ choice to have him. Trying to force a child on him is disgusting to me.
-
https://www.yahoo.com/news/last-generation-chinas-youth-rallied-090029327.html
China's young adults have begun referring to themselves as the country's "last generation."
...
"There are many things that make me think my generation is likely to be China's last, or its last 'good' one," Wang told Insider, referencing the hashtag. "None of my friends want to have children. And I, for one, don't want to bring a new life into a world like this, and for them to grow up to be lonely, aimless, and another useless statistic in the country's birth rate."
...
Weibo users used the hashtag as a platform to make posts lashing out at the pressures they face as Chinese youth to get married, have kids, and carry on the family line.
"People wonder why this idea of the 'last generation' is something that people our age strongly respond to. Where I'm concerned, I admire that man's courage in voicing what we all feel. We face pressure to give birth. Women are continually harangued and abused. Even men don't want children," read one Weibo post.
This is a good attitude.
Using the hashtag to comment on the country's birth rate, some posters even went so far as to compare having a child to "giving birth to a hostage."
But those ethical enough to voluntarily refuse to give birth to hostages have a duty to make sure those who see no problem with giving birth to hostages go extinct before we do! They are the ones taking us hostage by forcing us to stay around to fight them!
-
Elon Musk is not a Yahweh worshipper, he is a Mercury worshipper.
"God of financial gain, commerce, eloquence, messages, communication, travelers, boundaries, luck, trickery, merchants, thieves"
-
@rp Gaddafi wasn't a National Socialist, but Aryanism still shares a decent amount in common with other real world ideologies. So in that respect, he played a key role in promulgating universalist anti-Zionism. That's basically what I'm referring to when I talk about people who aren't necessarily Aryanists. A lot of the ideas and achievements of other ideologies are transferable to ours.
Not sure if Gaddafi implemented state control over reproduction like Deng had done or allowed anyone to reproduce as long as they could take care of their children.
-
Let's see the writings from the book page below :
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/6a7366d98b2661d5d9874f54e68cc392/247d0a50bba77436-d4/s2048x3072/d307c594940593771da067f0cead20801c19dfb9.jpg)
(https://64.media.tumblr.com/98c7199ebf0d846b16dafae71168dec0/247d0a50bba77436-47/s2048x3072/fd3e4536391180171dbdc99cfd6adc0874692ac0.jpg)
"Now that we know the laws of heredity, it is possible to a large extent to prevent unhealthy and severely handicapped beings from coming into the world. I have studied with great interest the laws of several American states concerning prevention of reproduction by people whose progeny would, in all probability, be of no value or be injuries to the racial stock. I'm sure that occasionally mistakes occur as a result. But the possibility of excess and error is still no proof of the incorrectness of these laws. It only exhorts us to the greatest possible conscientiousness. When I think of all the means that have been invented and constantly used to prevent conception or even to kill and abort the beginnings of life, it seems to me the ultimate in hypocrisy and inner untruth if these same people -- and it is them, in the main -- call the sterilization of those who are severely handicapped physically and morally and of those who are genuinely criminal a sin against God. I despise this sanctimoniousness in the world, as I despise all those who carry it in their faces and on their lips." - Adolf Hitler
Source : Otto Wagener, Hitler Memoirs of a Confidant page 145, 146
-
The simplest reason why the state should control reproduction is because the people who most need to not reproduce are those who will never voluntarily refrain from reproducing, and who additionally tend to be very successful at reproducing:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/son-writes-scathing-obituary-dad-151353672.html
Lawrence H. Pfaff Sr., 81, of Belmont, New York, died June 27. He lived “a long life, much longer than he deserved,” according to the obituary, which was published Saturday in The Florida Times-Union.
...
He described his father in the obituary as “a ladies’ man” and an “abusive alcoholic,”
...
Pfaff Sr. is survived by five children, but, according to the obituary, could have fathered more.
“His love was abundant when it came to himself, but for his children it was limited,” the piece said. “It will be challenging to miss Lawrence, Sr. because he was narcissistic. He was incapable of love.”
...
“Lawrence, Sr. can be remembered for being a father to many, and a dad to none,” the obituary concluded.
See also:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/non-aryan-treachery/msg464/#msg464
Another problem that could easily be solved by state control over reproduction:
link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40806-019-00213-0
The problems psychopathic individuals impose on society and in their interpersonal relationships can be held in stark contrast to reports of their appeal and sexual success in some of those relationships. In the current paper, we seek to contextualize this enigma by focusing on the interpersonal dynamics of psychopathic individuals in romantic encounters. We first formulate a plausible evolutionary function, the sexual exploitation hypothesis, that proposes psychopathy exhibits “special design” features for subverting female mate choice, facilitating the induction of favorable impressions and desire in prospective intimate relationships. We then test the hypothesis in two studies with university samples. Study 1 had young men assessed on psychopathy, social intelligence, and sociosexuality engage in a filmed dating interaction. Study 2 had young women view a subsample of the videos, rate them on desirability, and leave voice messages. Results show psychopathy was related to sociosexuality, specific factors of social intelligence, and generating higher desirability ratings from women after controlling for men’s physical attractiveness. Analyses involving comparisons of two men showed women’s ratings increased in favor of the more psychopathic man. Women’s voice pitch also changed, but only in response to different facets of psychopathy. The results provide preliminary support for the sexual exploitation hypothesis and suggest that more dynamic assessment of putative desirability in psychopathy may be required to capture its plausible special design features in prospective dating encounters.
but if left unattended will surely worsen over time as in each generation the psychopaths are reproductively advantaged, thus leading to more psychopaths in the following generation.
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/non-aryan-infidelity/msg466/#msg466
The archetype continues to be fleshed out:
medicalxpress.com/news/2013-10-low-voiced-men-em-women.html
Men with low-pitched voices have an advantage in attracting women, even though women know they're not likely to stick around for long.
...
"Until now, it's been unclear why women would like the voices of men who might cheat. But we found that the more women thought these men would cheat, the more they were attracted to them for a brief relationship when they are less worried about fidelity."
Another job for state control over reproduction!
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/non-aryan-infidelity/msg4084/#msg4084
Men in the Misogynistic group were more likely than men in the two Normative groups to have caused a pregnancy
And this is why we need state control over reproduction. Otherwise every new generation will be more sexist than the previous!
To say nothing of:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/enemies/elon-musk/msg14549/#msg14549
-
https://youtu.be/jAb7DGAjLr8
-
Pronatalism is heritable:
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/elon-musks-76-old-dad-203015062.html
Elon Musk's 76-year-old dad says he's had another child with his 35-year-old stepdaughter: 'The only thing we are on Earth for is to reproduce'
...
Elon Musk's dad has fathered a second child with his stepdaughter, who is 41 years his junior, he said in a new interview.
Errol Musk, 76, told The Sun Wednesday that he had a daughter with Jana Bezuidenhout, 35, in 2019.
The elder Musk and Bezuidenhout previously welcomed a son, Elliot Rush, who is now 5 years old.
Bezuidenhout's mother, Heide, and Musk were married for 18 years and share two children. Bezuidenhout was 4 years old when Musk became her stepfather.
Errol and Maye Musk were married from 1970 to 1979 and share three children: Elon, Kimbal, and Tosca.
...
The New York Post reported that he had fathered a total of seven children.
...
Speaking with the tabloid, Musk echoed his son's views on population growth.
"The only thing we are on Earth for is to reproduce," he said. "If I could have another child I would. I can't see any reason not to."
Today, Errol and Elon Musk are estranged.
That Errol and Elon dislike each other, yet still agree on pronatalism, only further proves my point.
If pronatalism is heritable, then it is likely that antinatalism is also heritable. This is why the duty of the National Socialist state is to keep antinatalist bloodlines around long enough for all pronatalist bloodlines (preferably starting with Musk's) to first be eliminated.
-
Hitler teaches us how to reduce the population and against Western Civilization from individual method, that is not reproduce
I don't know why the children who grow up mostly want to have child and reproduce with their partner during adult. Seeing that they ever abused by their oppressive parents. Of course I know, the reason is, they like to have s*x with their partner, because attracted by the partner's body...
-
"they like to have s*x with their partner, because attracted by the partner's body..."
I have tried to introduce a different way of thinking: the more you are attracted to the partner's body, the less you should want to have sex with them. If you are attracted to something, you should not want to change it. But sex demonstrably changes the partner's body (often irreversibly) in many ways (including but not limited to conception):
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/telegony/msg3429/#msg3429
Therefore wanting to have sex with someone actually reveals that you are not attracted to them enough. We should feel so attracted to our partner that we would not want to pollute them with sex.
This is the same reasoning as behind my old idea of promoting gravure as the alternative to ****:
https://trueleft.createaforum.com/human-evolution/non-aryan-infidelity/msg466/#msg466
We should consider promoting gravure as a clean alternative to ****. Whereas **** demeans the performers, gravure pedestalizes them. Thus in terms of psychological impact on the viewer, whereas **** leads to desensitization (and consequently the need for increasingly **** performances just for the same effect), gravure leads to sensitization (and consequently the demand for increasingly subtle performances). A gravure fan looking at **** will find it so unsubtle as to evoke only disgust. This is what we should aim at: not people refusing **** out of fear of being aroused by it, but people refusing **** because they find it too aesthetically crude to be arousing.
-
@90sRetroFan
The historical records shows Hitler never have direct s*x with his wifes. And only doing so-called "s*xual pleasure" with seeing her. And even he slept with separated bedroom from his wife.
-
https://streamable.com/0jnp4f
"I did not ask to be born, and the world is not suited to me, nor me to it."
(I realise that this is likely not the best place for this post but I am not sure where would be preferable - please move or delete this post as you see fit)
-
EMERGENCY EPISODE: Ex-Google Officer Finally Speaks Out On The Dangers Of AI! - Mo Gawdat | E252
In this new episode Steven sits down with the Egyptian entrepreneur and writer, Mo Gawdat.
0:00 Intro
02:54 Why is this podcast important?
04:09 What's your background & your first experience with AI?
08:43 AI is alive and has more emotions than you
11:45 What is artificial intelligence?
20:53 No one's best interest is the same, doesn't this make AI dangerous?
24:47 How smart really is AI?
27:07 AI being creative
29:07 AI replacing Drake
31:53 The people that should be leading this
34:09 What will happen to everyone's jobs?
46:06 Synthesising voices
47:35 AI sex robots
50:22 Will AI fix loneliness?
52:44 AI actually isn't the threat to humanity
56:25 We're in an Oppenheimer moment
01:03:18 We can just turn it off...right?
01:04:23 The security risks
01:07:58 The possible outcomes of AI
01:18:25 Humans are selfish and that's our problem
01:23:25 This is beyond an emergency
01:25:20 What should we be doing to solve this?
01:36:36 What it means bringing children into this world
01:42:11 Your overall prediction
01:50:34 The last guest's question
You can purchase Mo’s book, ‘Scary Smart: The Future of Artificial Intelligence and How You Can Save Our World’, here: https://bit.ly/42iwDfv
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bk-nQ7HF6k4
-
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/parental-guidance-choosing-not-to-have-kids-judgment-1.6869488
Being childless still carries stigma — even though more people are choosing not to become parents
For centuries, the idealized path through life for many people — especially women — has been one that includes a lovely home, a loving partner and a couple of adorable children to raise.
But increasingly, Canadians are choosing not to have children. The country's birth rate hit a record low in 2020.
There are many reasons people choose not to procreate: income, health, relationship status and simple preference. But one thing they all have in common is the stigma they face for that choice.
Lori Coombs was very set on not having children when she entered her first marriage. But she says she began to realize her value in the family she joined centred firmly on her reproductive abilities.
"Strangers that you chat with at a wedding will kind of put guilt on you that you're not doing your part in providing the world with a good human being to raise. You hear things like 'what if your child would grow up to cure cancer?' Well, maybe, but what if he grows up to be a serial killer?" says Coombs.
Lorilee Keller, a registered clinical counsellor in Vancouver, says society needs to shift focus away from the expectation that all people can or will be parents.
"I think a lot of people are looking for friends and family to be just supportive and maybe not assume that everyone is going to go down the path of having kids or that everyone has a choice in that," Keller said.
As younger generations face climate catastrophes, unreachable housing markets and political unrest, many more people will likely make the choice to not bring children into the world. We need to not just accept this but embrace it, and see the value in these members of our own "village."
Whether by choice or by not, the childless people in our lives play equally important roles and deserve to be free of any judgment.
-
Natalism is starting to sound a bit tribal? Imagine that...
The Cruelty of Natalism
People without children may struggle to survive in a natalist world.
Natalism can render individuals without children invisible.
Natalism holds no space for those without children.
...
Natalism
Whether by choice or not by choice, not having children in a natalist society is nearly impossible to navigate. There just isn’t room for us.
Natalism is, essentially, the promotion of childbearing. It’s when having children is the norm. Don’t have kids? You’re not normal. Welcome to life in the U.S. and most other countries...
Entire article: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/psychology-in-the-real-world/202306/the-cruelty-of-natalism
-
https://incels.is/threads/people-in-cucktears-will-say-that-the-son-will-have-no-problem-finding-a-gf-when-he-grows-up.73747/
"I see no problem with him" cucktears member would say when that poor son will grow up.
(https://incels.is/attachments/screenshot_20180911-202901-png.41092/)
-
The current president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro, who was chosen by the late Hugo Chávez, has a Sephardic Moorish background, and he has a biological child.
He stated in a 2013 interview that "my grandparents were Jewish, from a Sephardic Moorish background, and converted to Catholicism in Venezuela".[39]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro
His son also has his own biological children.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicol%C3%A1s_Maduro_Guerra
-
True to bloodline (from your Guerra link):
Nepotism
His father President Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores were accused of nepotism for allegedly placing family members in positions throughout the Venezuelan government.[10][11][12][13] His appointments as Head of the Corps of Special Inspectors of the Presidency and Coordinator of the National Film School were criticized as examples of his family's acts of alleged nepotism.[10]
On 25 January 2017, President Maduro again named his son as the director of a newly established position, the Director General of Presidential Delegations and Instructions of the Vice President, raising more allegations of nepotism.[14]
Jose Zalt wedding incident
At the wedding of Jose Zalt, a Syrian-Venezuelan businessman that owns the clothing brand Wintex, on 14 March 2015, Maduro Guerra was showered with American dollars at the gathering in the luxurious Gran Melia Hotel in Caracas.[15][16][17][18] The incident caused outrage among Venezuelans who believed this to be hypocritical of President Maduro, especially since many Venezuelans were experiencing hardships due to the poor state of the economy and due to the president's public denouncements of capitalism.[16][19][20][21][22][23] During a PSUV National Congress, Maduro Guerra responded to the incident, calling it "gossip".[24]
Photograph incident
During a first communion party in the Creole Club of Maracaibo, a woman named Rita Morales took photographs of Maduro Guerra with her cellphone. According to witnesses, Maduro arrived at the party surrounded by bodyguards and far from the rest of the guests. The bodyguards tried to take the cellphone away from Morales and force her to delete the pictures after realizing that Maduro was photographed. Morales refused and left the party; days after the incident, she was visited by officers that, according to witnesses, broke her cellphone. On 8 June 2017, officers of the Bolivarian Intelligence Service (SEBIN) detained Morales and her husband when they were about to aboard a private flight to Aruba in the La Chinita International Airport. Morales was taken to the SEBIN headquarters in El Helicoide.[25][26][27][28]
"His son also has his own biological children."
Children 2
This is a good example of why voluntarily choosing to have no more than one child (as Maduro Sr chose to) is not good enough. Sure, if literally everyone whose bloodline needs to be eliminated behaved like this every subsequent generation all the way to the end, then in theory it would suffice. But in practice, all it takes is for someone in a subsequent generation to resume having multiple offspring and we are immediately back to the old problem.