Chibi Devi - 30.png (846.58 KiB, 1280x720) google saucenao
Do you think male NEETs should have kids? No.4851

I guess one way to interpret this question is: do you think it's okay to be a househusband? I definitely do; however, I am aware that literally all straight women find this repulsive. I wonder if it's possible for nurture to override female nature in this respect...

Also Chibi Devi is based and cutepilled: https://www.wcostream.com/anime/chibi-devi-english-subbed

No.4852

>>4851
I don't think even homo couples would be ok with this, since people are always expected to work, unless they have an adopted kid

No.4853

no one should have kids the world is horrible and i hope everyone dies

No.4854

>>4853
true but i dont wanna die

No.4856
tomokeh.png (747.17 KiB, 1200x900) google saucenao

>>4852
What if everyone received a UBI or ample child tax credits and we had European/Canadian healthcare? The working class definitely is able to raise a child with less than $12000/year in our current reality. It's tough, but possible. Even in America, school is free, clothes are free, water is free, internet is free, food is so cheap our homeless people have an obesity problem, and we even have subsidized housing.

Is it just that puritan faggotry holding humanity back?

No.4857

Since existence is full of pain and suffering and it's rude to inflict pain and suffering, creating new life and being a parent is basically a selfish and highly abusive act. All babies are born crying because they know... I feel bad for every single one of them.

No.4858

>>4857
It's a selfish act in many ways, but despite my lfie being full of many pains and frustrations I am still happy I was born and given my chance despite being a failure. There was a slim chance my life would not suck, I would have taken that gamble.

No.4859

>>4857
eh I disagree. most people are pretty happy including me, because I'm a NEET

No.4890

yes! cutie neet relationship

No.4892

Isn’t being a househusband technically being a neet?

No.4895

>>4856
i seriously cannot believe it not a single thing you said in this post is true in any given way shape or form

No.4896

>>4895
What don't you believe?
>2-parent households raise a child with less than $12000/year each
fair enough, bump it up to $18,000: https://www.newsweek.com/half-american-workers-made-less-35000-2019-report-shows-1539503
>in America school is free
True: https://www.findlaw.com/education/education-options/public-school.html
>clothes are free
https://moneypantry.com/free-clothes/
>water is free
https://www.wetap.org/
>internet is free
https://www.worldcat.org/libraries
>food is so cheap our homeless people have an obesity problem
https://hms.harvard.edu/news/one-third-us-homeless-are-obese
>subsidized housing
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidized_housing_in_the_United_States

No.4897

No-one should have kids.
The best thing that could happen is that nukes destroy the entire planet itself, so that no life can ever come into existence again. Or at least use nukes to make the planet uninhabitable if that stuff is true.
People just want pets to get entertainment from, and to get attention from others, and to feel like they've moved up/on to the next step of life, or accomplished something.
Always vote pro-abortion and try to raise the costs of living so everyone will be too discouraged to have even a single kid, because ultimately everyone only cares about getting entertainment and pleasures from things and others and they'd rather spend their money on more immediate pleasures. Also - encourage wars so that as many people as possible can be freed from "life"/earth-prison.

No.4898

>>4897
Hard disagree.

Are you telling me your life is bad compared to the life of the average human 100 years ago? Hell, the average human today lives better than a *king* from hundreds of years ago.

If you're being honest, the answer is yes. This is only possible because people kept reproducing; because humans kept trying to make the world a better place. The fact is it's getting better all the time and the only reason you think otherwise is you're addicted to doomer media like MSNBC or Fox News. Chill out and watch some anime or something bro

No.4899

>>4898
Not that anon, but nowhere did they state that the world is getting worse.

No.4900
supbra.png (1.21 MiB, 1902x1076) google saucenao

>>4899
He didn't have to. What I am saying is that because the world IS getting measurably better (at an exponential rate I might add) it is inherently moral to continue the human species

No.4901

>>4900
>it is inherently moral
Are you going to justify your claim?
I'm not going to say it's inherently good or bad, but I don't think there's any reason why it would be inherently moral as opposed to subjectively moral. Best argument I can see is that we are technically supposed to procreate by nature so one might say that we are born to procreate, but it's a completely reasonable view that it's immoral to use our own selfish desires to force someone else into life. I think it's subjective, not inherently anything.

I don't regret being born and I'm glad I was given a chance, but my god did I squander my chance at enjoying life.

No.4902

antinatalism and moralizing/shaming people if they don't want to have children is equally stupid.
abortion should be legalized because it reduces crime.

if a cute neet couple is financially stable and responsible I don't see why not. if we have both househusbands and housewives, true equality will be achieved but this will never because of nature (both male and female) like op mentioned. neet kids may happen as outliers but never the rule

No.4903

This is just disappointing.

No.4910

I think it’s different for everybody. Not everyone is temperamentally suited to be a father. You should have kids if you can make them happy.

No.4912

>>4902
I agree with most of this. You shouldn't be forced to have kids either by your SO/parents or because abortion is criminalized.

However, I do think there ought to be some sort of test the parents must pass before having kids. People shouldn't be having kids out of boredom or merely because everyone else is doing it. You should have to pass a parenting class and both parents should receive a mental checkup. This of course is assuming you're living in a based and reasonable society where food, water, shelter, clothing, healthcare, and internet are human rights (like what the UN demands btw) so having a job or not would be irrelevant to the health of the child. I also think once it is determined that a fetus will have significant health problems, it should be aborted. We don't need any more people born with an allergic reaction to air.

Now time for the climax of this thread. We KNOW that pedophilia is a biological mutation some people happen to cursed with, not unlike gayness. Should we not let anyone with pedophilic thoughts reproduce? I argue yes because even most pedos are not into incest. Hell, even most people with incestuous thoughts literally can't get aroused around their family.

No.4913

>>4901
No problem. My moral axiom (and yours if you're not a sociopath) is "generate the most happiness for the most conscious entities" therefore creating more humans will lead to more happy people, on average, and a small portion of those people will create technology that benefit the whole.

No one rational and honest wants to go back to small tribal farming communes that humans existed in for most of history.

No.4914

>>4913
That's an interesting take. A pretty positive outlook.

No.4915

>>4913
The problem with utilitarianism (even positive) is the fact that it is not possible to measure happiness, and things that make one h\apply in the short term can make you sad in the long term, or grant a hollow pleasure weaker than genuine achievement.

No.4916

>>4915
if you're suggesting that on average most people can't feel long term happiness or satisfaction you should reevaluate your viewpoint, maybe even see a psychologist

No.4919

>>4913
>My moral axiom (and yours if you're not a sociopath)
I'm a negative utilitarian. Do you consider me a sociopath, Mr Anon?

>>4915
Utilitarianism is a really incoherent ethical system, but these critiques don't really hold.
>things that make one happly in the short term can make you sad in the long term
I don't think this is hard to measure. That thing just produces a certain amount of sadness and a certain amount of happiness. We can think of the outcome entirely in terms of the happiness it produced, and disregard everything else. And utilitarianism would say that if there's an alternative that produces more net happiness, no matter how much sadness is produced as a consequence (since utilitarianism is unconcerned with suffering in of itself), this action would instead be the moral one.

No.4920

>>4919
A negative utilitarian? So you want the optimize for the greatest degree of suffering.

You're either sociopath or retarded. Probably the latter tbh

No.4921

>>4920
I think you should read the wikipedia article you skimmed again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_utilitarianism
But it's fine, I make mistakes like that sometimes as well.

No.4922

>>4921
Your worldview so incoherent, you can't even explain it yourself. I guess that answers whether youre a sociopath or retard lmao

No.4923

>>4922
Well, alright.

"Negative utilitarianism is a form of negative consequentialism that can be described as the view that people should minimize the total amount of aggregate suffering, or that they should minimize suffering and then, secondarily, maximize the total amount of happiness. It can be considered as a version of utilitarianism that gives greater priority to reducing suffering (negative utility or 'disutility') than to increasing pleasure (positive utility).[1] This differs from classical utilitarianism, which does not claim that reducing suffering is intrinsically more important than increasing happiness. Both versions of utilitarianism hold that morally right and morally wrong actions depend solely on the consequences for overall aggregate well-being. 'Well-being' refers to the state of the individual."

I don't engage in typical image-board shit slinging, so I don't really have any creative insults to throw back at you. Sorry.

No.4924

>>4923
Copypasting a quote rather than defending your edgily named moral philosophy in your own words reinforces just how much a waste of time it would be to humor your "ANTI HAPPINESS", --er, sorry, I mean "negative utilitarianism"-- ideas

No.4925

>>4919
>>4921
The way to end the most suffering is total genocide lol

No.4926

>>4924
Oh, well okay. I suppose I can do that since you asked so kindly.

Negative utilitarianism is a form of consequential ethics that considers the primary form of deriving value to be suffering, and argues that suffering ought to be minimized as far as can be possibly achieved -- By extension, some variations of negative utilitarianism may give secondary importance to the concept of "happiness or pleasure", which it would argue ought to be increased as far as possible, soinsofar as this does not result in an increase in suffering.

>>4925
As unintuitive as it sounds, some would indeed argue that this is the case!

No.4927

Fuck, I couldn't help but try to give you the benefit of the doubt.
>>4923
>Minimize suffering is more important than maximizing happiness
Answer me this: are people who are suffering happy? No? Then there is no meaningful distinction here.

You're just playing word games to end up with the edgy name "negative utilitarianism". You seem pretty dumb so I will break down why this is edgy.

The most concise way to explain utilitarianism is "make decisions based on a utility function that is trying to maximize a given goal". Most forms of utilitarianism want to maximize admittedly poorly defined things like happiness and well-being. There are many metrics such as average lifespan or percentage of the population who are NEETs that when aggregated create a pretty good estimate of the more abstract positive things like happiness.

However, these are always POSITIVE things. Therefore, if you put "negative" next to utilitarianism, every educated person will read that as optimizing the utility function for a NEGATIVE thing, such as suffering. That is a very edgy thing.

Yet in truth, it seems the edgelord navelgazing philosopher who coined the term actually meant for it to mean "you minimize suffering first". But that is nonsense because we explored earlier, minimizing suffering is for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from maximizing happiness.

Now that your edgelord philosophy has been so embarrassingly refuted, let's never talk about "negative utilitarianism" unironically again. Okay chief?

No.4928

>>4916
You are retarded and should read books on reading comprehension
>>4919
Again, you can’t measure happiness, so you can’t say whether something will make someone more happy than another thing, and you can’t say whether something will make you happier now than it will in the future

No.4929

>>4927
I didn't name it though.
>Then there is no meaningful distinction here.
Huh, no. This isn't true. The two ethical systems result in very different conclusions, so they literally can't be identical. For example, giving primacy to suffering might result in the conclusion that, for example, giving birth is unethical, since this is an act that increases suffering. Whereas, in a conventional utilitarian system, since giving birth would INCREASE happiness, it would be argued as a good thing. I believe it's called "negative utility" as it refers to the idea that the minimization of a certain thing (in this case suffering), is the ultimate good, whereas conventional utilitarianism would be a form of "positive" utility, as it aims to increase something. Well, at least I think that's why it's named that way. Etymology isn't my strong suit.

>Therefore, if you put "negative" next to utilitarianism, every educated person will read that as optimizing the utility function for a NEGATIVE thing, such as suffering.
It seems counterintuitive that an educated person would get something so blatantly wrong, but I cannot speak of the educated, as this is something I am not kek

>>4928
Well, this much is true. I don't think measuring happiness can really be done reliably.

No.4930
stimmedup.jpg (208.39 KiB, 1680x1050) google saucenao

>>4929
Not having a kid theoretically increases net happiness because all theoretical suffering caused by that human is eliminated.

Goddamn I would be the worst teacher because I just can't dumb things down this much...

No.5025

fuck no

No.5048

Having kids is immoral NEET or not.

No.5059

>>4851
I've been donating my sperm to women privately and I've successfully impregnated two women. I'm donating again on the 20th. Check out this app called Just A Baby, they even pay me $100 for my hikkineet baby juice, stupid women.

No.5061

>>5059
You're either a fool or a demon.

No.5068

>>5061
In this case, a new life is going to be born regardless. Why shouldn't I secure my bloodline while raking in money? Are you an antinatalist who thinks life is awful?

No.5078

>>5068
antinatalism is based

No.5081

>>5068
>In this case, a new life is going to be born regardless. Why shouldn't I secure my bloodline while raking in money?
This is reasonable actually although i dont get why you care about securing your bloodline

No.5082

>>5081
We like that which is like us.

No.5167

I can't give up my mind. I have a soul - so I can't be enslaved. Only golems can have jobs and wives and kids, etc.
Don't worry - God will protect you and make sure that you are not led into the sins of having sex or jobs.