What's the last thing you wrote?
>>85425928>What's the last thing you wrote?a post where i called op a faggot on 4chan
>>85425928Roleplay with an Isabelle from Animal Crossing Character AI bot.
>>85425928Poem about a shitty town I worked in, forgot to do meter so it's trash and I hate it.
>>85425928I wrote a film summary about a 4chan janny and a shitposter. The film takes place only in their bedrooms and it eventually ends with the janny accidentally killing himself after his mother asks him to leave the house and get a job.
suicide note, no joke
>>85425928i wrote a story about the end of the world. a virus broke out that turned everyone in femboy skunks.
Some pussy ass shit on tumblr. I figured that I would be better off writing my sad feelings there than shitting up this board.
>>85425970i read it and i liked it THOUGHH
>>85425928Notes for university>>85426205Please get better!
>>85425928This is actually accurate. I read as well as write. Mostly, I just write. Tried to quit writing a few times, even. I can't. It's the only way I can express myself, so writing maniacally is truly like feeding an addiction
Labeled an Old photo of a streetcar in Cincinnati after I traced the location the photograph was taken at. Near school 27 on winchell avenue, demolished around 1962 for the interstate highway construction
>>85425970Here I improved it:
>>85425928dogshit poetry as usual
>>85425928like a book?or do you mean a post/reply?
Does the spreadsheets I did for the inventory at work count?
>>85426209I would like to read your skunk story, anon
Wrote a little essay about why the goods in life can never compensate for its harms
>>85428213The experience of life is what's being evaluated here, as a whole. The choice is to make a life, or not. Hence, you can't seperate the pleasure provided in life from the pain provided. The point you're making, that utilitarians are saying the pleasure undos the pain, is a strawman. The pain doesn't go away. It's merely the price of the pleasure. And if more pleasure than pain is produced by the action of giving life, then it's worth it.That said, utilitarianism is flawed because it treats reasoners and those who practice it like tools for the ends of maximizing the pleasure/pain ratio. And reason that treats reasoners as subordinate to it is fundamentally hypocritical. Utilitarianism would put pain/pleasure above even the abillity to comprehend utilitarianism and the authority of reasoners. Anti-natalism, often but not always an extention of utilitarianism via pessimism, has the same flaw. If we never were born, then we would not even be able to comprehend anti-natalism, let alone practice it. Anti-natalism, as a concept, would not survive its own implementation. If anti-natalists do not extinguish all life on earth, presuming life is only ever found on earth, then the few survivors would hardly be anti-natalist and we'd just start all over from the crueles, most life affirming times in history or worse.In truth, reality cannot exist as we know it without somebody to messure it. And if we remove the measure, then even anti-natalism stops being a problem. Everything is all the same thing without anyone to make definitions and identify contrast. You speak metaphorically about non-existence and describe it as like heaven, but to "those" "experiencing" non-experience, they're hardly thankful for anti-natalism. How could they be? It would be like nutting and then being covered in your own jizz and being like "why the fuck!... I don't like this! Why did I do that!" Metaphorically, of course.
>>85428443>And if more pleasure than pain is produced by the action of giving life, then it's worth it.But why? I would think that when the alternative to a tradeoff between harms and benefits, is just absolute nothingness, then shouldn't we choose, for our unborn children, the nothingness? We can prevent every single harm they would ever experience, at no cost (because they don't exist to be deprived of the benefits they'd receive as part of life's tradeoffs).Also, it's seems to me the utilitarian tradeoff is just totally arbitrary. They make like anything above a net zero makes the life worth starting. (As in, a life contains eg -20 harm, but +21 benefit, so the +1 makes the tradeoff worth it therefore the life is worth starting). But why are harms and benefits treated equally? If I offered you to undergo 1 hour of the worst suffering imaginable, and in return you get 1 hour of the best pleasure, would you take the deal? Of course not. This shows that we value the avoidance of harm to a far greater degree than the acquiring of pleasure. So in a utilitarian calculus a -20 harm would need to be compensated for by like a +200 benefit, just to reach zero (don't get caught up on the specific numbers here - the point is that harms are negatively bad more than benefits are positively good, and so it's not just a simple 1-1 tradeoff or compensation.
>>85428628>>85428443>Anti-natalism, as a concept, would not survive its own implementation.I mean you are thinking of the long term consequences of everyone not reproducing. Well firstly that won't happen but more importantly, antinatalism is not goal oriented, rather it's just a moral claim about the ethics of reproducing. So if reproducing is wrong, then it's just something that ought not be done, and yes by consequence this would lead to extinction. You seem to think antinatalists have the goal of extinction, and therefore don't reproduce to acheive that. That's two different philosophies. I just think bringing new humans into existence is wrong. That's my starting point. I start with an end goal of a lifeless earth. Your other point seems incredibly odd as well. That the long term consequences of people not reproducing would also end the existence of those who practice or "believe in" antinatalism is a problem.. how? You seem to think antinatalists have a goal of sustaining and maximizing the philosophy, which is at odds with the long term outcome of all humans ceasing (and therefore nobody to carry the philosophy). That makes about as much sense as arguing that it would be bad for vegans if we all went vegan, because without any animals being exploited or farms to protest or whatever then veganism as a movement would die out, which would be bad (?). I'm sure vegans would not give a single shit and would gladly pick the world that contains no animal exploitation, even if it means their little "meat is murder" sticker now represent a pointless philosophy.
>>85428642>>85428443> but to "those" "experiencing" non-experience, they're hardly thankful for anti-natalism. How could they be?Yeah. Nothing is better off by not being born, but everything born is worse off. They are born into a negative condition. So it's better not to reproduce. And although nothing actually is made better off, we can make comparisons between possible worlds (one where the baby is born and one where it isn't), and say which world is better (the world where the baby isn't born).
Chapter 1 of a story about a guy who meets a cute homeless girl in a peculiar way
>>854286281/2>But why?Because there's no more pleasurable alternative.>I would think that when the alternative to a tradeoff between harms and benefits, is just absolute nothingness, then shouldn't we choose, for our unborn children, the nothingness? Choosing the nothingness would not produce pleasure. It would merely prevent pain. Pain thay might be worth paying.>We can prevent every single harm they would ever experience, at no costThere's an oppotunity cost. Because you're not born, you never experience pleasure.>Also, it's seems to me the utilitarian tradeoff is just totally arbitraryYes, but that's an issue to as utilitarians. Some of them say the pleasure needs to be twice the pain to even break even, because of human biology.>If I offered you to undergo 1 hour of the worst suffering imaginable, and in return you get 1 hour of the best pleasure, would you take the deal? Of course not.If it was 10 hours of pleasure, and there were no additional costs, it's worth it.>This shows that we value the avoidance of harm to a far greater degree than the acquiring of pleasure.It depends on the pleasure. The point utilitarianism requires is just that it could be made worth it.>>85428642>firstly that won't happenAh, so anti-natalism just applies to you personally. >antinatalism is not goal oriented,Technically, neither is utilitarianism or any ethical system. >You seem to think antinatalists have the goal of extinction, and therefore don't reproduce to acheive that.Logically, if you apply anti-natalism universally, it means extinction.>I just think bringing new humans into existence is wrong.So what would logically be happening if you got your way?>the long term consequences of people not reproducing would also end the existence of those who practice or "believe in" antinatalism is a problem.. how?Without anti-natalists, anti-natalism would cease to have any definition. Hence, the idea that we should rid the world of reasoners would consume itself.
>>854286422/2>You seem to think antinatalists have a goal of sustaining and maximizing the philosophy, which is at odds with the long term outcome of all humans ceasing (and therefore nobody to carry the philosophy). >That makes about as much sense as arguing that it would be bad for vegans if we all went vegan, because without any animals being exploited or farms to protest or whatever then veganism as a movement would die out, which would be bad (?).You've just described why I'm incredibly distrustful of social movements and activists. However, no. Vegans getting their way is different from anti-natalists getting their way. If vegans get their way, the ideal of veganism remains intact. If anti-natalists do, obviously not because you can't have ideals without reasoners.>I'm sure vegans would not give a single shit and would gladly pick the world that contains no animal exploitation, even if it means their little "meat is murder" sticker now represent a pointless philosophy.Some would. The wise vegans wouldn't. The foolish vegans would come to regret it, because they needed veganism for more than just the diet. It was never about ethics, just using ethics to justify power.>>85428647>Yeah. Nothing is better off by not being born, but everything born is worse off.This isn't the point I was making. "Better off" and "worse off" would not be distinct parts of the truth, withouth somebody to define them. "Those" who don't exist would not physically be able to care about better or worse. To them, their non-existance is not neutral. It's not not neutral, either. All concepts are a category error to such "people" since, you know, they don't have brains. You assume it's neutral to not bring a human life into existance. It's null. Ethics do not apply to "them."
>>85425928Sometimes I write long messages to women who wanted nothing to do with me anymore as a coping mechanism but I never send them of course. I last did it like a week ago.
>>85425928A weird story about coomerism and sexual tension with a character named Trixie from a small equine adjacent mini-series. I never finished it. I can only get myself to write when high and drunk. Your pic is quite accurate.
