OLD CONTENT
www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-47154287Indian 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-israelwww.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:
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.
---
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.
Home
Search
Login
Register