You give them the option by giving them birth.
By not giving them birth you take that option away from them.
If you don't want to live, nigger, you don't have to.

File 174505180857.jpg - (130.11KB , 1600x900 , DNA-strands-concept-illustration.jpg )

>Anti-natalism is fucking retarded
Yes
>but also has a poin
No. And you are a crypto Anti-natalist

>a, how can you birth a child without any way of discussing with them about
There is no them. A child is not a real person until the age of 25. They start having real thoughts at the age of 12 and develop from there.

> any way of discussing with them
There is no them before they are born.
The child is a product, a creation I make with my upbringing and my sperm before that.

It is like you walking on me building a car and asking did I talk with the car before it was born. The statement is absolute nonsense.

> but how can you
>justify it
Because I want to.

>utopia
No one cares.

>but how can you justify it other than that creampies feel good?
What an absurd statement.

>creampies feel good?
Imagine writing this.

>creampies feel good?
How can you justify Anti-natalism except
<Dude my made up social construct of arbitrary cultural nonsense that only can develop in a civilizations end/death stage?

Because you literally have nothing.
Your ideas of consent and harm are literally nonsense that can never be justified.

>creampies feel good?
You know why sexual reproduction feel good in all males of all species?
Because they evolved this way.
>Why did they evolve this way?
Looks like you are ignorant of evolution and basic handling of reality at this point.
Can we agree on this?
>???
Either way they evolved this way because a species entire life is dependent on thriving and REPRODUCING.

If the species did not reproduce it will die out.
This is fundamental biology and evolution.

>>16373
>There is no them. A child is not a real person until the age of 25. They start having real thoughts at the age of 12 and develop from there.

yikes
Children are people. Also the brain doesn’t finish development at twenty five, it starts dying

Also children start having real thoughts before age twelve

You denying children any ounce of personhood is paradoxical
Personhood isn’t spontaneously manifested in adulthood

> There is no them before they are born.
The child is a product, a creation I make with my upbringing and my sperm before that.

Children develop physically and cognitively in the womb. People don’t develop sentience immediately at birth

>How can you justify Anti-natalism except

<Dude my made up social construct of arbitrary cultural nonsense that only can develop in a civilizations end/death stage?

>Because you literally have nothing. Your ideas of consent and harm are literally nonsense that can never be justified.

I take it that you never dealt with deformed people before?
I take it you never studied nature? Even in the animal kingdom, there’s rules and boundaries that are followed.

Natalism isn’t a virtue within itself. Plenty of humans and animals and plants are born all the time. And there’s limited space to go around

>>16373
> The child is a product, a creation I make with my upbringing and my sperm before that.

>It is like you walking on me building a car and asking did I talk with the car before it was born. The statement is absolute nonsense.

This comparison of children to products is exactly why child abuse is so rampant
People like you should be monitored with children

You're both retarded. Here's the facts whether you like them or not.

1) It is a legit point for someone to feel like they should not bring a child into this world due to the overall state of the world and society and it is also a legit point to feel that you should anyway, since you can raise the child right and by doing so become part of the solution.

2) Yes children have thoughts before the age of 12 FFS. They are not blank slates running around like robots until age 18. This absurd concept seems to have been promoted by people who are trying to draw a hard wall on the issue of consent. I'm guessing.

3) On the issue of consent. Consent is a legal term not a term from psychology. It means that the person was aware of the possible consequences of the act they are consenting to. If someone makes a contract with me to fix my house and the guy fixing it did an evaluation of the house's structural issues and knew that if he did the work the house might collapse during the renovation but failed to disclose that to me, then I could not have given him consent to do the work because I was unaware of the risk.

Likewise, a child can not fully consent to sexual activity because they are unaware of the consequences of doing that. Depending on the specific activity in question those consequences can be
1) Physical pain/bodily damage
2) If post pubescent unwanted pregnancy
3) psychological trauma
4) falling in love/heartbreak upon not being able to have a relationship with the adult (being in love consumes the thoughts/attention/time of the person in love which interferes with their school studies and other things in life
5) early "Sexual awakening" causing frequent sexual desire and "acting out"

Now the first three can be explained to the child and maybe the fifth. Number four has to be experienced to be understood. The first three can also easily be avoided by excluding penetration and S&M type activity including spanking. In other words
you can't do bondage, spankings or S&M type stuff. penetration is physically painful to them due to their small size and in in girls the hymen. So no pain is the primary concern as that is where the majority of the harm comes from.

Same with fear from trauma. Bondage or situations where the child feels in fear or powerless is where most of the remaining trauma comes from. So no fear, no pain should be the huge dividing line between mere pedos and abusers. But it's not. Morons think finding someone attractive means you want to rape and murder them and hang their body on a meat hook.

Now that we've removed the psychotic abusers from the conversation, let's focus on what remains. Heartbreak and sexual mania. No one wants a little child to cry and experience heartbreak. It's bad enough the first time you deal with it as a teenager. Kids do develop crushes on adults so it's natural for them to love us, but once that level of love is returned to them from someone they have a crush on, they can easily become consumed with thoughts only of you. Then when they find out that such a relationship can not be sustained they will be devastated.

On the sexual acting out/sexual mania/early sexual awakening issue: this comes exclusively from orgasm and stimulation of the sexual organ. It feels different someone else touching you than you touching yourself. In girls, many don't even discover the clit for quite some time and live years without actual sexual stimulation. The imbeciles in the old days used to think children literally could not feel sexual stimulation which is a bizarre head in the ground like an Ostrich approach to dealing with their own uncomfortable feelings regarding the issue.

The solution to that is no stimulation of the sex organ in either direction. Since the child doesn't know what it is they can't consent to doing it to you and since they don;t realize having it done to them would result in their constantly wanting it, acting out, and all of that, they can not consent to that. Of course this point divides the set of underage people into two groups because older one do understand that.

So the answer is clear: Just as a child can and does consent to hugs, having their head caressed, and back rubbed, physical touching that does not stimulate the sex organ can be consented to by children. I'm NOT saying the law says this or the courts have ruled this way. I AM saying it is logically true.

If the child is told up front that no relationship with the adult is possible and that physical affection is occasional and just to be taken as nothing more than a hug/back rub, then the following activities should be legal regardless of whether the adult is sexually aroused by them or not:

1) hugging and kissing (not french)
2) Body Massage/caressing/hugging/kissing (yes entire body) so long as sex organs, nipples, butt crack, and anus are not touched
3) Reciprocal touching. This is point 2 above but the child doing it to the adult.

This is the reality that both sides of the argument don't like because the pedos want to do more and the anti pedos still think someone doing even this should be murdered in cold blood. Both sides are imbeciles.

There's a case to be made for teens for increased level of activity as their ability to consent to some of this increases but that's another topic.

As for me the listed 3 items above are the only things I'd ever do with an underage and I have never have even done that.

>>17284
weak logic, but at least you're thinking

Also your understanding of sex, sexual experience and sexual energy tells me that like 98% of people you have barely/never actually even experienced sex as what it can / is supposed to be.

I can give a child or a woman sexual experience barely even touching them at all, maybe their arm or their shoulder that is multiple times the intensity of you straight up pounding them... I can't explain this, but simply know this as true and you'll see how a lot of what you wrote (among other reasons I won't mention, but it's mostly flawed through and through) falls apart.

Still, you're one of the very few thinking about any of it at all before making your convictions, decisions and attitudes about it, so you deserve praise.


AS FOR REALISM. CHILD 5 YEARS OLD IS OLD ENOUGH TO TAKE THEIR LIFE IF THEY SO DECIDE. If that's the case they can make a decision about any of the trivialities.

Most people will never be mature enough to be allowed to make choices freely in the open world.

The difference between a monkey and a common man is much much smaller than between a common man and what a man can be and some are... Almost incomprehensibly so.

You are a monkey who convinced yourself you're being at least somewhat reasonable or are deliberately dumbing it down to at least have some engagement instead of none, which I get, if that's what you're doing. Well, there's nothing to be said about any of it except that violence decides at the end of the day. There's no reasoning with any of you, because people are on levels so different that even attempting is an absolute waste of time 99.99999999999999999% of the time or whatever

I just vibe bro, I'm a surfer dude, let me just fuck some childs (16 and older)

But if you really want to approach it analytically, let's begin where beginning is due - Godel's incompleteness

>>17286
I could pick your reply apart easily but instead I'll clarify a few things.

First, I am not advocating the kind of touching I'm talking about. I'm saying that it does no harm. the basis of anti-pedoism is that is does harm to the child. I mean that's what they say their reasons are. Many of them in my view use that as a shield to give themselves the moral high ground in the eyes of the masses.

In reality the reason they are so rabidly against it is twofold: First, it gives them a sense of winning. They get to be a "hero" just for one day. They have found a whole bunch of people that they are "better than" and that saves their sense of low self worth.

The second reason is that they find it "disgusting". The thought of it grosses them out. Kind of like when I see two obese people smoothing at the mall or something. Or someone on 4chan posts some nasty bitch's unshaven crotch in a photo from the 70's. The pubic hair spreads out like bird wings. Some women have hair allover the god damn place. Looks like a bearded monsters mouth opening up. Disgusting. But I'm not trying to put them in a woodchipper for finding each other attractive.

Notice how actually caring about the children is not one of their motivating factors? And what is it they find so disgusting? The child's body? The sexual act itself? If that were the case, then they wouldn't want to murder pedos that don't do the deed nor want to. Instead they want to murder anyone who finds anyone under 18 to be attractive. Bizarre criminal insanity.

But mostly it's that they think sexual activity is bad. They think it's wrong unless you are trying to have a baby, then it magically transforms into something beautiful. I assume they feel guilty when they get aroused and after orgasm.

They also consider sex an act of domination. Akin to rape. There are both males and females who think this way. So admitting a child is beautiful they interpret as you wanting to harm the child and dominate them because that's the only kind of sex they have known in their own lives which they are full of self loathing for partaking in and also blame their lover/spouse for doing it "to them".

In short, they're insane and belong deep in mental health therapy.

However, I agree with them when it comes to people who do real harm to children. It pisses me off to think someone hurt a child. Conflating having affection for them with hurting them is despicable to the extreme.

I'd never harm a child in a million years. Hell, I won't even do the things I was talking about in my last reply. See, whenever a topic comes up, I look at the topic logically and without bias. This is a way of thinking the ignorant masses can't comprehend because their primary motivation in every single thing they do, think, and say is to fit in with society rather than to look for truth.

They falsely assume that because I didn't fall 100% in line with every single point they make about the issue that I must be a child abuser. Why else wouldn't I just repeat verbatim what they say? They literally can't grasp that with their pea brains. I'm not even exaggerating. It's fucken wild. It's like a twilight zone episode where a dude wakes up one day to find that every single person on earth has transformed into a retard.

At any rate, I will not ever touch a minor in any "sexual" way that is illegal. I never have and I never will in spite of the logical arguments that I have made regarding the issue. If I was going to I'd have already done it which I haven't.

File 178237433898.png - (1.76MB , 1500x1179 , 1684897699034.png )

>>17288
You were doing good up to here

>They also consider sex an act of domination. Akin to rape. There are both males and females who think this way. So admitting a child is beautiful they interpret as you wanting to harm the child and dominate them because that's the only kind of sex they have known in their own lives which they are full of self loathing for partaking in and also blame their lover/spouse for doing it "to them".

>In short, they're insane and belong deep in mental health therapy.

I suppose you don't have much experience with women or maybe just one of those who remain naive their entire life. But yes there are power play and not necessarily malicious or of manipulation (from women it's usually malicious/manipulatory, but they usually only do it as a defense mechanism having been already hurt). Sex has many layers with different meaning, kinda like 7 chakras and it's simply a fact that some of them very much have things to do with domination. Or being bigger or being the owner and the owned. That would be the solar plexus mostly but I'd say each of the roughly 7 aspects/layers of sexuality carries an asymetry or polarity of it's own except the 7th.

And I could go in deeper, but I doubt our belief systems are even close enough to bridge our gap with any efficiency whatsoever even if it is indeed possible.

But anyway, a lot of women learn this domination to be a negative thing and a lot of men do this domination as a power trip and when you mix in something relatively innocent and pure and more vulnerable than usual - like a child, people get extra freaked out.

The truth is that you'll never keep a woman (you can attract a woman, because she's too confused in the beginning sometimes to see things) but you'll never keep a woman unless you treat her in many ways like a child. And you are her father in a sense. Except if she stays for cerebral reasons. So by default it works like that, but people often want to not acknowledge this and deny this fact and reality (or some, like I suspect yourself, being autistic, which I relate to just haven't become privy to this yet and interacted more on intellectual basis i.e. platonic basically - fair and equal, treating the whole sex thing mostly as a bodily endeavor).

>I'd never harm a child in a million years.
Again, naive and lack of self examination. You haven't explored your darkness enough yet for what could be any of a huge number of reasons. But yeah, even the purehearted would and could do bad things to others.

>I'd never harm a child in a million years. Hell, I won't even do the things I was talking about in my last reply. See, whenever a topic comes up, I look at the topic logically and without bias. This is a way of thinking the ignorant masses can't comprehend because their primary motivation in every single thing they do, think, and say is to fit in with society rather than to look for truth.
Sure, on top of that 100IQ is actually often dumb as fuck, so dumb that they opt to not even use it where it would benefit them, so realistically it drops to 70 often because according to them that area isn't to be even reasoned or thought about, because it's too obvious or some other dumb excuse.

But I'll finish with this - sexuality is a wondrous and beautiful thing and most people are barely scratching the surface and often times the older they are the more surface level it gets because of the trauma and no longer wanting or being willing to explore the deeper aspects. Especially women who get hurt in the whole sexual dynamic usually more than men (while at the same time holding more of the ability and power to manipulate, so basically god balanced it all perfectly). Men reap what they sow. Well, usually you get what other men sowed, but you get the idea. Meanwhile women are so pissed at the whole thing, they basically reduce it to resource extraction strategy 80% of the time (or some hybrid) by the time they're over 25.

It's pretty fucked, but the deeper possibilities don't disappear just because of how things are currently in society. Possibilities are still there.


Anyway, dude, I appreciate the conversation, even though we disagree and in general are just very far from each other in terms of how we think about these things, but at least you're not braindead and give actual reasons and arguments for why you think what you think instead of resorting to winning an argument at any costs (trying to convince the other instead of actually discussing) if your own beliefs get threatened.

MFW I though about this 20x what the average person has, yet have 20x less conviction about any of it. People are incredibly dumb, but they also reap the results of that dumbness, so I can't even feel angry about it. Best is just to avoid most unvetted actors or engage altruistically and through a distance. Meanwhile legal system is gonna die in the next 10 years due to ASI, so hold your horses until then.

>>17289

Actually I do know about that and I overstated my point. Power dynamics are hardwired into us from evolution. So yes, a sort of domination exists in relationships. This is why women get aroused at an Alpha male behaving in Alpha males ways. In the animal kingdom most copulation is akin to rape except the female is in heat and even though she whines and sometimes fights she still submits to it.

However, that's not what I meant exactly. So holding someone down and forcing yourself on them or bossing them around and things like that in sex, whether play or real is what I meant. I want to hug a child and feel love for them in my heart as I do and that gets interpreted as me wanting to hold them down and rape them. It's fucking insane.

In spite of our evolution affectionate sex still exists. And frankly I'm not even talking about sex. I don't desire to have sex with an underage. I simply feel great affection for them. Except teenagers. They are too retarded for me to feel much affection for usually.

Anyway, that was my point. I just wanted to clarify it.

File 17824606925.png - (380.59KB , 740x1009 , 1755621168800.png )

>>17290
I get you. Children are the only folks I still feel like I don't have to filter aggressively. I mean even if they are bad people inside, I'm willing to risk it and just give freely anyway..

best ppl in many ways. And new gens are more connected to their spirituality which is nice.

Teens? better still than 25 year olds. More naive, more pure, sure dumb in many ways many times, but also more relatable and interesting. The little kids can be too childish to really do anything interesting. I'm all for playing, but their idea of game and play can still be a bit immature and thus boring...

But as for sexiness teens (pubescent and postpubescent) are 100x sexier than small children. Although I realize they all have sexuality as I was once one myself.
But yea, children are pure and cool, I like them too. But I don't want anyone to get the wrong idea, so unless the parents are my good friends, I stay away from the child.

And the teens, if it's a girl and bellow a legal limit I also stay the fuck away. 15 y/o girls in my country I want to have absolutely nothing to do with not even in terms of friendship or anything. Sorry bro I didn't make the laws, but we can't be friends unless I lwk film EVERYTHING. Idk, it's fucked. Godspeed the kids, I suppose it;s the parents job to grow them up and give them some wisdom and so on... which they themselves often lack. Not my problem I guess. I could become teacher, but fuck that, too much time investment and I have my own shit to take care of instead of the next generations.

tldr teens are cool. and sometimes cool aff

>>17283
>2) Yes children have thoughts before the age of 12 FFS. They are not blank slates running around like robots until age 18. This absurd concept seems to have been promoted by people who are trying to draw a hard wall on the issue of consent. I'm guessing.

Tabula rasa is the most damaging sociopsychological sentiments ever. It’s responsible for our K-12 education system being so shitty. It’s why we have peer pressure and helicopter parenting.

>>17284
>Likewise, a child can not fully consent to sexual activity because they are unaware of the consequences of doing that. Depending on the specific activity in question those consequences can be
1) Physical pain/bodily damage
2) If post pubescent unwanted pregnancy
3) psychological trauma
4) falling in love/heartbreak upon not being able to have a relationship with the adult (being in love consumes the thoughts/attention/time of the person in love which interferes with their school studies and other things in life
5) early "Sexual awakening" causing frequent sexual desire and "acting out"


Not to be that guy, but it was common in the old days for kids to play doctor with each other. Masturbation in prepubescence is also a natural thing to happen.
And they would have romantic relationships with each other not even fully sexual

>>17291
>Teens? better still than 25 year olds. More naive, more pure, sure dumb in many ways many times, but also more relatable and interesting.


That’s because teens are biologically adults being treated like children. Adolescence wasn’t a thing before the eighteenth century. Back in the old days, puberty was the mark of adulthood and they had rites of passage and apprenticeships. Nowadays, the “brain development” theory wants to extend adolescence until the early thirties.
It’s especially sad that awkwardness and ugliness is normalized as par for the course in youth. Young people who are worldly, suave, dapper, and graceful are often portrayed as narcissistic. Awkward, weak, dumb kids are promoted as inherently good.
Innocence is less innate than it is imposed.
Parents and teachers treat teens like toddlers with their therapy-speak dialect and keeping mum about family secrets and labor laws preventing them from working for their own treats.


>The little kids can be too childish to really do anything interesting. I'm all for playing, but their idea of game and play can still be a bit immature and thus boring...

Irony is, kids would be more inclined towards worldly things but western society prefers to keep them as cartoonish characters.
In fact, adults are disturbed by precociousness in children.


All in all, the naivety of youth is more relative than you think.
It’s a vicarious thing imposed by adults so as to not feel left behind

>>17290
>In spite of our evolution affectionate sex still exists. And frankly I'm not even talking about sex. I don't desire to have sex with an underage. I simply feel great affection for them. Except teenagers. They are too retarded for me to feel much affection for usually.

That’s because teens are treated like kids but then demanded to act like adults. So it causes great confusion for them.
Parents and teachers are to blame for this.

Also, affection is prevalent in other animal species.

>>17284
>Now that we've removed the psychotic abusers from the conversation, let's focus on what remains. Heartbreak and sexual mania. No one wants a little child to cry and experience heartbreak. It's bad enough the first time you deal with it as a teenager. Kids do develop crushes on adults so it's natural for them to love us, but once that level of love is returned to them from someone they have a crush on, they can easily become consumed with thoughts only of you. Then when they find out that such a relationship can not be sustained they will be devastated.

It’s more due to toddlers and teens not having autonomy. If kids and teens were given autonomy, heartbreak wouldn’t feel so bad. And this modern culture of intolerance of youth having any ounce of negativity or hurt. Kids aren’t allowed to be sad or mad without adults diagnosing they as hormonal or bipolar or sociopathic
Modern Youth is trapped in forced positivity

>On the sexual acting out/sexual mania/early sexual awakening issue: this comes exclusively from orgasm and stimulation of the sexual organ. It feels different someone else touching you than you touching yourself. In girls, many don't even discover the clit for quite some time and live years without actual sexual stimulation. The imbeciles in the old days used to think children literally could not feel sexual stimulation which is a bizarre head in the ground like an Ostrich approach to dealing with their own uncomfortable feelings regarding the issue.

It’s amazing that adults have no problem with violence being done to youth. It was common for kids to jump out of trees without safety, beat each other with sticks, punch each in the face out of impulse, etc
Kids used to die from excessive bullying and it was written as “kids being kids”

But when kids start kissing each other or jacking each other off? Adults draw the line there.

Back to the topic of anti natalism.
I find it funny that anti natalism is looked down upon when misopedia, misandry, and misogyny are prevalent.
Most childrearing adults often express buyers remorse about their kids and spouses.

Also, it’s becoming expensive to raise a family and abortion is often used as a first resort for unwanted pregnancy if not abandoning the child or just plain old mistreating them

>>17289
>But I'll finish with this - sexuality is a wondrous and beautiful thing and most people are barely scratching the surface and often times the older they are the more surface level it gets because of the trauma and no longer wanting or being willing to explore the deeper aspects. Especially women who get hurt in the whole sexual dynamic usually more than men (while at the same time holding more of the ability and power to manipulate, so basically god balanced it all perfectly). Men reap what they sow. Well, usually you get what other men sowed, but you get the idea. Meanwhile women are so pissed at the whole thing, they basically reduce it to resource extraction strategy 80% of the time (or some hybrid) by the time they're over 25.

>It's pretty fucked, but the deeper possibilities don't disappear just because of how things are currently in society. Possibilities are still there.

We have AI sex robots in development but people are freaking out about it, calling it degeneracy.
People want sexuality to remain dependent on inter human contact.

>>17293
Yes I agree, but not only. There IS a innocence. Because although in some respects I had much less of it than many 60 70-year-olds by the time I was 18 19, I continue to lose it. Not as in a bad thing that is happening

Let's call it naivete. Especially in regards to who and what other people are and can be. As well as who and what you yourself are and can be. There is a learning curve. Most people don't even embark on the journey, but those who do, do not have all of their realizations in the first few years. It's just how it works.


>>17294
Try teaching that (or even just treating them as if that's the case) to anyone else's kids that are not your own and you will be fucking nailed to the cross. Especially if the relationship is with a kid of an opposite sex, forget about anything real or intimate (non-sexually) or treating them in any way like an autonomous entity...

I mean, I'm glad to help some of them out, but not at the cost of being persecuted myself. And btw nowadays even kids just assume ur pdf if you care to interact with anyone underage. But I have... And I guess we all used to do stupid shit when we were younger, but I think I've noticed that nowadays it is still stupid shit, but it is in bounds so short not nothing interesting of it can't even come. I mean the mainstream consciousness... To me it's incredibly boring for the most part, they don't even have the attention span to create proper memes, I mean sure some, but a lot of it is, well it's hard to explain anyway

I feel like when I was underage, we would get up to some shenanigans, but because life was less stimulating, we could stick to one thing a little bit longer and so potentially it could become something more interesting if that makes sense

Poor kids, I feel like they are a little bit robbed of that and they don't even know that they are.

Meanwhile when we were underage on 420chan people were already destroying themselves or venturing on expeditions extremely farr away. You know what I mean? Some things take a little bit of commitment. Or maybe I'll just haven't been exposed to the right communities oh well

>>17298
> Yes I agree, but not only. There IS a innocence. Because although in some respects I had much less of it than many 60 70-year-olds by the time I was 18 19, I continue to lose it. Not as in a bad thing that is happening

You’re referring to life experience. Not the same as innocence.

>Let's call it naivete. Especially in regards to who and what other people are and can be. As well as who and what you yourself are and can be. There is a learning curve. Most people don't even embark on the journey, but those who do, do not have all of their realizations in the first few years. It's just how it works.

Fair point, but regardless you have to admit that people back then trained their young whereas nowadays we dump them in public schools and ban them from working and dating.

Also, not all kids grow up the same. There’s kids who grow up in ghettos and learn about sex and drugs at age twelve, having to sell drugs to get pocket money.
Or they get lucky and get accepted into job programs like JOBCORPS that get them a relatively stable career compared to their suburban counterparts.

There’s also kids who don’t grow up in ghettos but are grown in worldly environments where they’re exposed to adults a lot and pick up adult interests early.
Some even solicit adults.

Nowadays, your twenties is considered the second decade of adolescence. Thirty-five is considered the new eighteen. Yet so many people in their thirties and forties nowadays have a reduced skill-set. Part of this is the reckless overpromotion of higher education, which eschew technical skills.

There’s been an increase of people reaching thirty with little to no romantic or sexual experience. The only people having kids in their twenties and thirties are usually single moms.

>>17298
> Try teaching that (or even just treating them as if that's the case) to anyone else's kids that are not your own and you will be fucking nailed to the cross. Especially if the relationship is with a kid of an opposite sex, forget about anything real or intimate (non-sexually) or treating them in any way like an autonomous entity...

That’s because misopedia is an Anglo American thing that’s being exported to the rest of the world

>I mean, I'm glad to help some of them out, but not at the cost of being persecuted myself. And btw nowadays even kids just assume ur pdf if you care to interact with anyone underage. But I have... And I guess we all used to do stupid shit when we were younger, but I think I've noticed that nowadays it is still stupid shit, but it is in bounds so short not nothing interesting of it can't even come. I mean the mainstream consciousness... To me it's incredibly boring for the most part, they don't even have the attention span to create proper memes, I mean sure some, but a lot of it is, well it's hard to explain anyway

Generational nostalgia is a serious cognitive bias. You’re a millennial I take it? You share more similarities with the new kids than you think.
Nothing new is allowed to be enjoyed anymore because it’s all dismissed as brain rot yet if we reuse an old aesthetic it’s considered stale, like what more do you people want? And a lot of generational nostalgia nowadays makes no sense.

Anything made after 2003 is cultural plateau


>I feel like when I was underage, we would get up to some shenanigans, but because life was less stimulating, we could stick to one thing a little bit longer and so potentially it could become something more interesting if that makes sense

I beg to differ. Kids can and do stick to projects and whatnot. It’s just that they’re not as brutal as jumping out of trees or playing with matches and firecrackers. Kids now prefer more arts-and-crafts oriented fun, not mere stupid brutality.

I always get annoyed with adults who accuse Internet Age kids of being tainted just because they prefer more refined/worldly forms of recreation. Childhood fun shouldn’t be all about kinesthetic frenzy. That shit gets boring after awhile

>Poor kids, I feel like they are a little bit robbed of that and they don't even know that they are.

No offense but can we as adults stop assuming that newer generations are “missing out” just because they don’t share the exact same recreational trends as we do?

The real problem is this obsession with innocence and simplicity. Adults wanna eradicate all worldly aspirations from children.
“Kids aren’t kids anymore” just because they prefer dressing up dapper and watching more nuanced gritty televised entertainment rather than goofy cartoons with recycled jokes.

I’m not against goofy cartoons at all but kids should be allowed to enjoy more worldly nuanced stories.

In fact,childhood literature used to be more nuanced and dark before the mid-twentieth century

>I mean, I'm glad to help some of them out, but not at the cost of being persecuted myself. And btw nowadays even kids just assume ur pdf if you care to interact with anyone underage. But I have... And I guess we all used to do stupid shit when we were younger, but I think I've noticed that nowadays it is still stupid shit, but it is in bounds so short not nothing interesting of it can't even come. I mean the mainstream consciousness... To me it's incredibly boring for the most part, they don't even have the attention span to create proper memes, I mean sure some, but a lot of it is, well it's hard to explain anyway
> >I feel like when I was underage, we would get up to some shenanigans, but because life was less stimulating, we could stick to one thing a little bit longer and so potentially it could become something more interesting if that makes sense


Maybe because adults are becoming more intolerant of childrens antics, while paradoxically becoming more self indulgent in childhood nostalgia.
Cyber bullying with cringe culture and now these concerntrolling essay videos obsessing over some non-vulgar cartoon/toy that’s supposedly affecting childrens psyche.
Kids aren’t allowed to have their own preferences without adults trying to pathologize them anymore. Not that it’s new but the way it’s done is especially obnoxious and hypocritical.

>>17298
> Meanwhile when we were underage on 420chan people were already destroying themselves or venturing on expeditions extremely farr away. You know what I mean? Some things take a little bit of commitment. Or maybe I'll just haven't been exposed to the right communities oh well


A lot of our content creators online be making compilation videos of their OC cartoon series.
Kids be making fanfiction stories of their favorite characters. Gen Alpha aren’t gonna be interested in the dull mild delinquent antics like Gen X kids were

>>17291
Do you have attraction towards teen females, teen males, or both?
Because mainly, hebephilia is often used to mean attraction to teen females while attraction to teen males is referred to as pederasty

Also nowadays, the moral obsession with grooming is gonna turn them off really bad
A lot of those grooming cases you hear about are often parasocial kids or often gross exaggerations

Teen females aren’t all sexy little vixens waiting to trap grown men nowadays
You’d have to go back to the 1960s,70s, and 80s for that

>>17300
Not what I meant for the most part, but admittendly I did a poor job at explaining it.

I understand your counter and agree and in some ways it was warranted, but for the most part I'm not who you're talking about.

But hey you still give me a little bit of hope that I'm completely wrong and kids actually do have proper attention spans.

I love tasteful brainrot btw.

Really the things I posited mostly came from being on a few my mother's fax machine servers where there were mostly teens and the conversation was just endless... bullshit but not like bullshit in old 4chan way or whatever, but just.... bullshit that leads nowhere, lacks creativity and is all the same and there isn't a longer than one sentence message in like 100. Maybe I'm the dumb one not catching nuance, sure, but damn... I guess they're just REALLY bored, but that just tells me they haven't seen shit, because this life is unbelievable, magnificent and awe inspiring pretty much 24/7, to be bored here is to be robbed of... gold and miracles. Anyway... I'm not disagreeing, I just think you didn't really catch my drift with that.

File 178250718133.jpg - (357.99KB , 1536x2048 , 17753344861.jpg )

>>17303
I'm mostly hetero, but yeah pubescent all the way to close to menopause (exceedingly rare) can be sexy.

However I experience a pretty extreme case of... finding very few people actually sexy. Gen Z is sexier in general, but, yeah, even when I was in my early 20s (late millennial) and the 20 year olds were more accessible in that sense - I'd rarely give a fuck about 99% of them, even the conventionally attractive, IDK if I was delusional or what, I mean plenty of them were pretty hot I guess, but if I didn't like the energy or found them boring I'd just... not even consider them sexually... I guess I'm a bit more open now getting older myself, but also I genuinely think gen Z is cooler and sexier than what millennials were.

And also due to most people balooning (males and females) with age and my preference for not ultra but definitely a fair bit thinner side of "fit" - the demographic that has the most of my preferred body type ends up being roughly 18-22 year olds. In many ways still kids. But I think it's highly dependent, because most people are gonna be complete dumbasses their entire life whereas if you're born with a certain neural makeup you're gonna be that while you're 14 already....

>>17304
I could easily say the same about imageboards now. Also, childhood in general is massively overrated for excitement. Adults always love to act like their generational experiences of childhood was the best ever. And I think it’s because they haven’t been a kid in a long time.

I’m sure if you were a Gen X kid and became an adult around the time of 4chan, you’d dismiss it as boring brainrot.

I view alot of shit from the past and present as okay for their times but quickly deprived of novelty.

>I guess they're just REALLY bored, but that just tells me they haven't seen shit, because this life is unbelievable, magnificent and awe inspiring pretty much 24/7, to be bored here is to be robbed of... gold and miracles. Anyway... I'm not disagreeing, I just think you didn't really catch my drift with that.


It’s funny you mention BOREDOM. People like to preach about BOREDOM being a virtue lost to electronic media. Yet most adults don’t realize that being online 24/7 actually makes children more easily bored than they realize.
In fact, I would say that post-millennial kids are more prone to boredom than adults realize. But, as usual, adults will
Impose their generational definition of whatever onto the newer generations.

>>17306
>However I experience a pretty extreme case of... finding very few people actually sexy. Gen Z is sexier in general, but, yeah, even when I was in my early 20s (late millennial) and the 20 year olds were more accessible in that sense - I'd rarely give a fuck about 99% of them, even the conventionally attractive, IDK if I was delusional or what, I mean plenty of them were pretty hot I guess, but if I didn't like the energy or found them boring I'd just... not even consider them sexually... I guess I'm a bit more open now getting older myself, but also I genuinely think gen Z is cooler and sexier than what millennials were

Tbh, most people are boring and that’s ok. I think you’re looking for something more than sexy. I kinda feel the same way as you in that department. Also, Gen Z is just evolving millennial aesthetics which are a rehash of Gen X aesthetics. So if anything, we are in Gen X part 3 going on part 4 (Gen Alpha)
Also, I think the sexiest people were the boomers back in the 1970s. IMO, fashion kinda went to shit from the late 1980s thru the 2000s. Fashion got better around 2009-2013 with the hip-hop house revival.

It’s interesting to see how millennials are complaining about Gen Z and Alpha dressing “too sexy” and not being “dorky teen” fashion.
I think it’s just jealousy tbh.
I was a dorky teen but I would rather have the new kids not have to suffer that if they don’t want to.

>And also due to most people balooning (males and females) with age and my preference for not ultra but definitely a fair bit thinner side of "fit" - the demographic that has the most of my preferred body type ends up being roughly 18-22 year olds. In many ways still kids. But I think it's highly dependent, because most people are gonna be complete dumbasses their entire life whereas if you're born with a certain neural makeup you're gonna be that while you're 14 already

Again this goes back to what I said about the social infantilization of young people. 18 thru 24 is now considered “emerging adults” which is just euphemism for “secondary teenager”. This is due to stranger danger, helicopter parenting, and lack of social lives outside of school and home. Academia is also becoming socially invasive in young peoples lives. It used to be that whatever happened outside of school, stays outside of school. Not anymore. Schools will now monitor your social media accounts for any scandals or fights.
I remember back in the 2010s when they implemented zero tolerance policy for fights outside of school grounds.

Young people nowadays are actively discouraged from sex and dating especially outside of their age group. Do you know that nowadays, a young adult dating anyone a few years their senior is considered “grooming”?

And mix in the fact that due to economic recession, a lot of young adults still have to live with parents, many of whom are helicopter parents, and due to college being overpromoted as the new rite of passage into adulthood, the adolescent experience is continued.
People say they only will date 24-30 as the minimum age but even a lot of people in their thirties and forties are kinda adolescent.
I mean look at our post-Boomer adult culture.

Young people who display any ounce of worldliness and suave are considered “shallow/toxic”.
Awkwardness is moralized as a virtue of youth.

And we see this with the neopuritan zeitgeist. A lot of millennials and Gen Z are now cracking down on “problematic” fanfiction just because they involve fictional teenage characters having romance/sex with older people, or they involve furry fetishes, or rapeplay, etc
Millennials and Gen Z consider themselves to be the most open minded and tolerant people when it comes to sexuality yet most of it is just for show. Numbers show that since the 2000s, people are getting their cherry popped at a much later age.
Couple that with these grooming scandals coming (some real other’s grossly exaggerated), people are now starved for sex and affection. Now, a lot of people have to turn to AI chatbots for sexual gratification which is coming under attack as well.

People complain about the dumbing down of society and the surveillance state, but then turn round and put trackers on their kids. If anything, I think that adolescence is being used as the social engineering impetus for the panopticon.
If robots take over the world, I think it’s gonna be due to helicopter parents.

So if anything, this ties into why antinatalism isn’t such a bad thing.

File 178252220920.jpg - (356.31KB , 1844x2021 , FD7FE265-7EC2-4506-87AE-D126901B0850.jpg )

>>17306
>However I experience a pretty extreme case of... finding very few people actually sexy. Gen Z is sexier in general, but, yeah, even when I was in my early 20s (late millennial) and the 20 year olds were more accessible in that sense - I'd rarely give a fuck about 99% of them, even the conventionally attractive, IDK if I was delusional or what, I mean plenty of them were pretty hot I guess, but if I didn't like the energy or found them boring I'd just... not even consider them sexually

This is how I felt even as a teenager. Maybe because I was an awkward loner kid who could never really fit in with anyone.
But that’s Why I prefer fictional characters for psychosexual gratification. Especially anime/manga characters.

Main reasons for antinatalism:
Rise of Developmental disorders
Dwindling job market
Geopolitical conflict
Lack of romantic opportunities
Climate change
Human overpopulation

>>17290
>And frankly I'm not even talking about sex. I don't desire to have sex with an underage. I simply feel great affection for them. Except teenagers. They are too retarded for me to feel much affection for usually.

It’s sad that misopedia has become normalised to the point that showing positive attention to children especially if you’re a man means you’re a groomer.

In fact, misopedia is the number one reason I think antinatalism should be considered.
The way adults talk about children as leeches, embarrassments, or comparing them to horror creatures just because they have exuberance and nuance makes me puzzled why adults still want families

File 178254630430.jpg - (22.92KB , 400x400 , VcDN_QZ8_400x400.jpg )

>>17307
>Adults always love to act like their generational experiences of childhood was the best ever
Not what I wanted to say. my life from around 2 to 20 was a sophisticated form of torture and hell. There were a nice thing or two, but fuck that shit. Hell bro.

>I’m sure if you were a Gen X kid and became an adult around the time of 4chan, you’d dismiss it as boring brainrot.
I missed 4chan by at least a few years, only 420chan for me tbh

But again it's not the THINGS that I'm talking about. Just nevermind bro, forget that point.


>It’s funny you mention BOREDOM. People like to preach about BOREDOM being a virtue lost to electronic media. Yet most adults don’t realize that being online 24/7 actually makes children more easily bored than they realize.
Hard to comment, I haven't felt boredom since I was around 14 maybe. like ever. and 14 already I was starting to become very anxious, so probably not even then. the last decade actually the last 15 years at least was nothing short of insane and unbelievable. I don't think it's a virtue, I appreciate never being bored and always having my mind blown. Can't relate to the faggot on /eh/, this shit is only increasingly mindblowing for me.

With the exception of people. I get bored by people 10x faster maybe 100x faster than in the past, but it's not a problem, because I can focus on something else or the people I know to be not boring (which yes turned out to be just a handful that I know, but I never had many/any friends anyway, even if I interacted with more folks as I was younger...)

> Fashion got better around 2009-2013 with the hip-hop house revival.
Jap influenced fashion and all the playful ways of signaling has never been better than now. And people were just duller in the 20th century IMO but I could be wrong.

>Gen Z and Alpha dressing “too sexy” and not being “dorky teen” fashion.
>I think it’s just jealousy tbh.
Bingo. We and gen x used to think it's less acceptable, so they'd express their sexuality less and since there was less of a culture of being more creative with it, it would end up being in less sophisticated forms. I mean sure nowwadays it's plenty of tasteless too, but in that large volume of tasteless, something more sophisticated can develop, whereas in the past maybe it was just boring and a bit of sexy was developed, IDK, I think fashion nowadays is epic and better than ever.

>Young people nowadays are actively discouraged from sex and dating especially outside of their age group. Do you know that nowadays, a young adult dating anyone a few years their senior is considered “grooming”?
YES. What blows my mind the most is that the kids themselves believe this, it's no longer aging women that are pushing the narrative.

>>17309
>that’s Why I prefer fictional characters for psychosexual gratification. Especially anime/manga characters.
Most anime and mange romance is dumb and just tickles things, doesn't really go anywhere deeper (I haven't actually read or even watched that many though).. and ultimately there's more possibilities and depth to be explored with another person. Plus anime will always be there, real relationships are a bit more time sensitive if you still wanna be in your prime (for women it's even moreso, poor things shine with the power at the sun at their peak and then fade in just a few years... usually) I treat even my male to male platonic friendships as a sophisticated form of romantic higher chakra love. Like I have their back physically, we we never touch or kiss in a very affectionate way other than squeezing their hand, hugging upon greeting and separating... But I feel like the level of love and in a certain sense romance that I achieved there is more subtle, but way beyond in many ways what I achieved with any women..

That being said 002 is one of the hottest things ever if I were to create her tulpa

But Yeah, I suppose I can't call it psychosexual needs, but I get romantic needs met through my genuine love towards my male friends even if there's just about nothing sexual about them. Slop and lust needs I mostly take care of with my own two hands. I could get a gf for that, but I feel like it would be a bit unfair to do to a lady even if she knew exactly what it was and signed up for it... I mean girl psyche is a little bit more sensitive to being used for sex than male psyche. And with how toxic the whole culture around it is, I'm just not sure I want to add more to it. I mean she'd have great sex with somebody that at least WANTS to care about her even if doesn't, but... IDK it's just a bit too fucked for me. I'd perhaps be open to paying for sex though, because then I think truly nobody would expect any kind of long term commitment from that, but even then I think it's damaging to females to...

I mean they ultimately have 2 goals with their sexuality hardwiring:

1. find someone who signals great genes (this is mostly what we as men want) and someone dominant in the social hierarchy
2. find someone who is in love with you (read - CARES) and wants to stick around at the very least for pregnancy, hopefully more

If she can't find the second thing, consciously or unconsciously, but her self worth and quality of life will suffer. And it will lead to perversions like hating all men in general and blaming the wrong feeling they feel inside for men being men at all. Meanwhile they themselves make the point 1 and point 2 diametrically opposed in their minds oftentime lol, not realizing they're putting themselves in a no win situation. They do this by thinking that if someone is willing to commit to them, they must be lower status and lower in the social hierarchy... I suppose it stems from low self worth, but it's just... You can heal her from this, by indeed treating her a bit trashy at first and some girls with huge egos it can take MONTHS to finally settle in a more feminine role AND ENJOY IT, but most men just like to complain about it instead of realizing they are the ones with the power... Well, they still have to play her little games for a good while and maybe that's boring, but most just think there's nothing they can do and the woman is to blame. They call it "validating" or "over-validation". In other words if she cannot feel like she cannot get you, she feels like she doesn't want you. This is actually not what hypergamy is even though the two are related. But if you really care about the girl and see potential, you can actually play this game for her for a while and eventually she'll settle into a more submissive role and stop thinking you're overvalidating when you're being loving to her, yes even the most stubborn ones. Most of course either are just straight up assholes and don't give a fuck about her or simp for her and get immediately rejected.. Depends on the girl ofc, but if she's not super young, this is actually rampant nowadays (and existed forever before now). Some girls don't have such big ego and can submit sooner, but the big ego ones eventually do also if you treat them right. It just might be too boring for you to play that extended game, because big ego is inherently boring... But for the right girl you could make that investment. And it's not manipulation, it's allowing her to get out of her own way basically. which is a service if anything. Otherwise she's locked herself in a no win cage with the key in her pocket - you're just showing her that the key IS INDEED in her pocket. And that the men (all men lol) are not necessarily the ones to blame for her not utilizing the key and walking out of the damn cage. With the correct attitude is easy to do.

Meanwhile men mostly just want signals for good genes (pretty girls, intelligent enough, cool etc) and child rearing ability (how hot her body is right now).

File 178255132528.jpg - (397.65KB , 1615x2048 , 1748541738481.jpg )

Funny, I just drew and interesting parallel - the way men cheap out is by settling for a hot body that makes their pp hard, but inside the person is not very intelligent - read straight up dumb, is kind of boring, ain't super beautiful etc and just doesn't make them care or want to commit very hard etc, is just a nice nest for a baby, but the genes, which produces the consciousness, the genes themselves are nothing to write home about.
Well there's also simps who actually do care about the lady and admire the genetics, but allow themselves to be walked all over by them for a chance of just having sex, not even necessarily kids...

But going back to the parallel - the way women cheap out is by choosing what they perceive as the best genes (even if it's a consciously created and maintained illusion by them, albeit most of the time I think it's highly unconscious, one can do it consciously for the sexual gratification of it and to some degree I suppose it IS done consciously), yet more or less zero commitment or actual care and love from the man or in some cases even a lack of ability, not just intention to. "The empowered woman" lol, what a joke. If at least their sex life was great, but I really doubt that it is. Going through partners... well I suppose I'm not the one to comment on the merits or value of that as it was never my thing nor do I have the experience necessary then. But at least for women, I'd argue it'd just leave them feeling emptier and emptier at the end especially as they're hitting the wall. Men on the other hand may enjoy the endless pussy a bit more, albeit without deep passion I'd argue the sex must be a bit on the boring side too. But I guess sometimes you can discover partners you really love through sex, so variety then wouldn't hurt..



The difference in many ways I guess is that for men the two are less mutually exclusive. Neither are they for women, but they can be quite opposed in a damaged dynamic. Poor girls just can't seem to get it right... Can't blame them. I think it's the men that should set the standard.

But to sum up men cheap out on the genes (beauty, intelligence, consciousness) while choosing a hot little nest to plant their seeds (young and fertile), whereas women cheap out on the "being taken care of and treated like a female" (being loved basically), while choosing the best apparent genes which is linked to social dominance or at the very least strength and safety and dominance of some sort if it's not social dominance.

IDK if that makes sense, but it kinda does to me

>>17313
> treat even my male to male platonic friendships as a sophisticated form of romantic higher chakra love. Like I have their back physically, we we never touch or kiss in a very affectionate way other than squeezing their hand, hugging upon greeting and separating... But I feel like the level of love and in a certain sense romance that I achieved there is more subtle, but way beyond in many ways what I achieved with any women..


Bro, you serious? I cannot believe I found another guy who understands the profundity of fraternal love (friendship) over romantic love.

It’s so sad that men are told that they cannot be platonically close to each other without being accused of homosexuality or weakness.
Men are too willing to give affection to women in exchange for sex.
Men are told they’re not allowed to seek beauty or affection for themselves, only for women.

I think this is the crux of the “inceldom” epidemic (note how I put the word in quotation marks because the original definition has been twisted)

>But Yeah, I suppose I can't call it psychosexual needs, but I get romantic needs met through my genuine love towards my male friends even if there's just about nothing sexual about them. Slop and lust needs I mostly take care of with my own two hands. I could get a gf for that, but I feel like it would be a bit unfair to do to a lady even if she knew exactly what it was and signed up for it... I mean girl psyche is a little bit more sensitive to being used for sex than male psyche. And with how toxic the whole culture around it is, I'm just not sure I want to add more to it. I mean she'd have great sex with somebody that at least WANTS to care about her even if doesn't, but... IDK it's just a bit too fucked for me. I'd perhaps be open to paying for sex though, because then I think truly nobody would expect any kind of long term commitment from that, but even then I think it's damaging to females to...

Are you me? I cannot tell you how much I tire of hearing other men whine about “tfw no gf” when these same guys will complain about how women are shallow and boring. And women act the same way.

Friendship is treated as some juvenile pastime to be grown out of. I mean seriously, look at pop culture and morality lessons always making friends either the butt of jokes or some agent of evil.
Yet, friends are the ones that do favors for you when family and lovers fuck you over.

In fact, the most stable romantic relationships are those that began as friendships.

>>17315
>The difference in many ways I guess is that for men the two are less mutually exclusive. Neither are they for women, but they can be quite opposed in a damaged dynamic. Poor girls just can't seem to get it right... Can't blame them. I think it's the men that should set the standard.


As usual, men are always burdened with the responsibility of ethical and morals. Men do set standards but then they’re accused of chauvinism. So when men let women set standards, women then complain about men being cowards. You cannot win. The more you try to make reparations for women, the more contempt they have for you.

But even so, as you say, women aren’t always the ones at fault. Heterosexual romance is useless outside of procreation.
The only way for men and women to appreciate each other outside of recreational or procreational sex is friendship.

>>17315
> value of that as it was never my thing nor do I have the experience necessary then. But at least for women, I'd argue it'd just leave them feeling emptier and emptier at the end especially as they're hitting the wall. Men on the other hand may enjoy the endless pussy a bit more, albeit without deep passion I'd argue the sex must be a bit on the boring side too. But I guess sometimes you can discover partners you really love through sex, so variety then wouldn't hurt..

Men often end up feeling hurt too. Women aren’t the only ones who are discarded. Women often use men too. Maybe not for sex but for emotional and financial crutches.

People often like to say chivalry is dead, but I beg to differ. Chivalry is still barely holding on. It needs to die. If you studied the history of chivalry you’d see how nasty and shallow it all is.

It was never about sincerity or inner dignity. It’s all about mutual narcissism. Men showing off and women yearning to be seen.

>>17313
> YES. What blows my mind the most is that the kids themselves believe this, it's no longer aging women that are pushing the narrative.

Because the hags are part of the neoliberal council of SJWism. It’s not even just them. Their male counterparts are pushing this too.
I believe it’s subconscious jealousy. I notice that whenever late prime/early post-prime age adults see younger people having worldly fun or success, they get royally pissed. They look down on their juniors as leeches stealing the fruits of their labor. Even though said juniors busted their asses for success

Meanwhile when it’s the inverse, the elders in question often like to shower their juniors with consolational platitudes about “money doesn’t buy happiness” or “just enjoy your youth”.
I’ve noticed that ever since Gen X and millennials become the new boomers, they’re now actively discouraging kids from wanting to pursue stability and prosperity early. They keep telling their juniors to “take it easy” and “kids should be kids”.

But it’s hard for kids to enjoy their youth when economic and social prospects are mainly subpar and mediocre.
Kids should be allowed to pursue the finer things in life.
If it means sacrificing mediocre cliche juvenile pastimes to gain a more worldly form of recreation where it’s champagne on a yatch, I say go for it.

>>17319
I'll get back to you later, but I like how you see kids. I suppose I achieved a little bit of that in my youth, and my teen years, but also I was royally fucked and it was extremely difficult, but although I didn't have any economic prosperity and not even in my twenties, so I wasn't in any way accepted by society or found my place in it, but I found something that was worthwhile...

So in some ways being forced outside of society, actually benefited me. The disillusionment was early enough not to waste too much time on it, but again the financial and economic perspectives suffered, however I had a hell of a lot of time, which I think few people do and which I think benefited me immensely. I suspect for the current kids it can work that way as well, many prospects are bleak, but that allows them to invent something out of the box, at least for one or two of them. You know like watermelon seed effect. We'll see...

I'd like to make friends with some youths, but also I am insanely selective... So it's a blessing when I meet anyone at all regardless of age.

>>17320
You too buddy.
And if I don't hear from you again, good afternoon good evening, and good night.

>>17313
>With the exception of people. I get bored by people 10x faster maybe 100x faster than in the past, but it's not a problem, because I can focus on something else or the people I know to be not boring (which yes turned out to be just a handful that I know, but I never had many/any friends anyway, even if I interacted with more folks as I was younger...)


This. I think socialization is highly overrated. A lot of the “loneliness epidemic “ people preach about is just paradoxical. People still have friends and family they hang out with. It’s just that people have an idealized impression of social bonds
Methinks people don’t know how to enjoy being by themselves having their own thoughts for company.

>>17323
Didn't forget about you bro, very full days.

yeah im kinda anti-natalist for the sake of PLEASE END THE HUMAN RACE THIS IS HORRIBLE but living is cool af like i love nature and stuff

i was discussing with my dad, a philosophy lover and historian, what does he consider a person. like, what even *is* a person? a human? every human is a person? dead or alive? when does someone begin being a person? at birth, conception, or somewhere in between? if yes, in vitro babies are people? they begin being people WHEN? i want a point of life that someone begins being a person. i've come to the conclusion (as a christ follower) that anyone with a soul is person. who was a soul? idk man.

>>17337
People show more personhood for the dead and permanently comatose than the unborn or the very young.

>>17337
I think we can't prove or disprove solipsism except that the consequences of each are very different, so we can choose accordingly what we prefer and what feels right and makes life more interesting.

But a person is anything that exists and what has existed or will exist - exists now. A stone has a soul, a sound has a soul, so they are a type of person too.

Natalism.. I'm not against (human) life, but I don't necessarily see the need to make as many of us as possible.