On the inefficient, dishonest usage of the word pedophilia.

In many cases, delusional idiots use the word pedophilia in a completely incoherent fashion which complicates any discussion on topics dealing with pedophilia, as they don’t even know how to use the word efficiently.

Pedophilia best describes sexual or romantic attraction to the stage of prepubescence, it isn’t useful to describe attraction to fertile teenage females under the age of what your local bigot committee deems acceptable (by that logic you could also change whether or not you’re a pedophile by what country you are currently in) because someone who is attracted to secondary sexual characteristics is not necessarily attracted to prepubescents, the average 14 year old is way too old for an exclusive pedophile, and neither does pedophilia, attraction to children, mean rape.

The media however constantly uses the word pedophile to describe rapists or ”rapists” of children or ”children”, which creates a conflation between pedophilia and rape in the minds of most as they already instinctively feel disgusted by the notion of children being sexual in any way anyway.

To call a child rapist a pedophile as a description of his crime is idiotic, it is like calling a mass murderer a gun owner.

It’s true that he may own a gun, but the possession of the gun itself is not what caused the damage, the damage was caused by the gun having been utilized to shoot his victims. Similarly, the erection in response to a child itself is not what caused the damage, if a child was raped at all and the media is not lying as they’ll automatically say anything under the particular holy age of their country is rape no matter if the ”victim” wanted to have sex, the fact that the child has been held down and had said erection forced inside their anus is what caused the damage.

In fact, even to the raped child, if really raped, it is kind of extremely insulting, it’s like you’re saying that the only issue with the rape of that child is that the rapist had an erection (because he is a pedophile, sexually aroused by the child) whilst raping it, if he just raped it with a flaccid dick instead, less pedophilically so, it would have been much better.

A gun owner or anyone can kill a person, but gun ownership itself does not equate to the shooting of a person.
A pedophile or anyone can rape a child, but pedophilia itself does not equate to the raping of a child.

Not to mention, a child rapist doesn’t even necessarily have to be motivated by pedophilic desires, he could just get off on a different aspect of raping the child than the child’s childishness, e.g. an extreme sadist could get off on destroying a newborn infant’s anus instead of the fact that the infant is prepubescent, but he would find it equally arousing to destroy an adult’s anus with a sharp object like a jackhammer or screwdriver.

”Convicted of gun ownership.”

How idiotic does that sound when it is supposed to mean someone was convicted of shooting 10 people? Exactly how idiotic it sounds to any rational mind to say ”convicted of pedophilia” when someone raped a child.

”Convicted pedophile.”

Convicted of what, arson, driving over the speed limit, tax evasion? Am I just supposed to assume that a pedophile can only be convicted of one crime? Pedophilia just tells that they are attracted to children, how am I to know that this means this person has been convicted of child rape?

If a man is a ”convicted homosexual” am I automatically to assume that this person has been convicted of raping other men? It’s just one of many characteristics this person possesses, he could also just be convicted of driving over the local speed limit.

”OMG you can’t seriously compare homosexuals to pedophiles, how insulting! This is bigotry and slander, homosexuals are NOT pedophiles!”

Depends entirely on which aspect we are comparing, the attribute roundness in apple is the same as roundness in orange, just like the attribute ”not being a rapist for simply having a slightly less normal sexual fantasy” is the same in homosexual as in pedophile, even if you believe that a pedophile could only have sex with the someone they are attracted to by causing harm to them, which there isn’t any great evidence for, but whatever.

Also, why would it be shameful to be a pedophile in particular? It just implies that you are attracted by children, this means you probably fantasize about them in a sexual context sometimes, the implication here is often times that the pedophile in question already somehow harmed children by thinking about them, particularly if they looked at pictures of children, although no one would go to jail even for jerking off to pictures of children being stabbed or run over by cars.

Do you by sexually fantasizing about children (even if you imagine something that would actually harm them, like anally raping infants) somehow telepathically injure an infant whenever you ejaculate? You’re the bigot for thinking that pedophile is an insult in the first place.

Some homosexuals are also pedophiles, it just means that you are of one sex, and you are attracted to prepubescents of that same sex, a male attracted to prepubescent males is a homosexual pedophile/pedophilic homosexual, a female attracted to prepubescent females is a homosexual pedophile/pedophilic homosexual.

Assuming that pedophiles are automatically rapists is an absurd conflation, a considerable amount of idiots are ignorant to the point that they essentially subconsciously believe:

being attracted to fertile adolescents=being attracted to prepubescents
being attracted to prepubescents=being a rapist

The most intellectually impaired pedophobes of all believe if you are attracted to a 14 year old girl for the same reason you are attracted to an 18 year one, i.e because she has secondary sexual characteristics in the form of tits and ass, you must be a pedophile who is attracted to 4 year old girls as well, and if you are attracted to 4 year old girls, well, then that must obviously mean that you rape infants, so we should publically castrate and shoot you right away! Attracted to adolescents=attracted to prepubescents=rapist of prepubescents, it’s obvious!

Now we’re in the mood for ruining someone’s life, this disgusting fuck is attracted to secondary sexual characteristics, what an infant raper! Don’t let this guy that is attracted to 14 year old girls for the same reason he is attracted to 18 year old girls around your newborn, he’ll rape it in the ass when you’re not looking!

Kill all pedophiles, because they rape children!
Kill all gun owners, because they shoot people!
Kill all knife owners, because they stab people!
Kill all straight men, because they rape women!

Even though these moronic bigots would of course never admit it that boldly, those are the subconscious assumptions that are instinctively made by them, and they hate being educated about how ignorant they are. If you try to educate them, many of them essentially respond as any other religious bigot would, they assume you must just be a sinner against their religion.

They’ll say they don’t care, it’s all pedophile scum, you’re justifying pedophilia you pedo/nonce, which is their little buzzword to immediately spiral themselves into hysteria over, similar to how islamists have infidel, christians have sinner, the nazis had untermensch and the slave owners had nigger. If someone’s a ”pedo”, every uncivilized, inefficient, backward behavior is justifiable.

Just like some religious retard will accuse anyone who doesn’t pander to their retardation as just wanting to sin against god and ”make excuses” for it, just like some extreme racist might demonstrate themself to be completely unwilling to acknowledge the difference between a black thief, an impoverished black person and a Mexican, when you could just conveniently like the ignorant simpleton you are throw them all into category ”nigger scum”.

This harmless black person shares one characteristic with a black bank robber, and because I find the attribute ”black” disgusting, I will simply put them into the same category, they’re both nigger scum, period. Why not?

It’s simply an inefficient usage of the word resulting out of your bigoted assumptions about all individuals of one big group, (real, not make-believe) child rape is bad, not pedophilia, just like stabbing someone to death is bad, not the possession of a knife, or like strangling someone is bad, not the possession of a skipping rope, or shooting someone is bad, not the possession of a gun.

It is instrumental to strangle someone to be in possession of the skipping rope, but it’d be non-sensical to try to ruin the life of everyone who owns a skipping rope just because some stranglers use their skipping ropes to strangle children, because it simply doesn’t prove all skipping rope possessors to be child stranglers.

Similarly, it is instrumental to rape a child to get an erection in response to it, but it’d be non-sensical to try to ruin the life of everyone who gets an erection in response to children just because some child rapists use their erections to rape children, because it simply doesn’t prove all pedophiles to be child rapists either.

On child sexuality.

While there are many different non-sensical arguments used to justify the sexual deprivation and repression of children, I think the most important thing to point out in discussions/debates about the topic of pedophiles and children having sex is that there is no actual evidence that child sex is intrinsically harmful.

There are some things that are inherently harmful, such as getting slowly tortured to death, getting violently gang raped with a baseball bat, burning kittens alive, etc, no matter what your surrounding culture opines on it, some things are simply guaranteed to cause harm.

Sex in childhood is not such an activity, it’s a fact that children have genitals through which they can theoretically find out about the existence of sexual pleasure on their own, without having to be manipulated or violently forced into it by anyone.

So if let’s say a little girl actually wants to obtain the same pleasurable sensation from rubbing herself against a pillow by rubbing herself against a pedophile’s leg, there’s no logical reason or evidence to assume this would be harmful outside of the social consequences that the pedophobes themselves are creating in response to such encounters, no evidence for intrinsic harm, only evidence for children feeling harmed once they see how negatively society reacts to it.

The theory that sex in childhood is inherently harmful is based on wrongful implicit assumptions, pedophobes immediately think of all kinds of different factors that are not inherent to the act of having sex with a child or minor when they even hear the word pedophilia, such as:

an unwilling, innately asexual, ”innocent” (sex=guilt) child
force
manipulation
blackmail
anal penetration
STD exchange
pregnancy
social consequences (that the pedophobes themselves are creating)
violent abduction, rape, murder

without ever demonstrating an intrinsic harm to the activity of having sex with a child/minor itself.

Then, they lump both the 8 year old girl voluntarily humping the leg of a pedophile into the same category as the 8 year old girl getting violently raped by some psychopath, their disgust inhibits any trace amount of rational and critical thought they had left.

They never prove the sex itself to be harmful, just that sometimes it can be made harmful, so that then they can use that as an excuse to lump all child and underage sex into one category because they feel equally disgusted by it, thus failing to draw a distinction between harmful and harmless cases of child sex – there is no proof that child sex itself causes harm, the pedophobe just foolishly confuses their disgust for evidence of harm like any other bigot would do.

They’re employing post hoc ergo propter hoc reasoning – B happened after A, therefore, B was definitely caused by A. Person left the house while it was raining, got wet from the rain, therefore, leaving your house causes you to be wet, even when it’s not raining.

Children have sex, are traumatized, therefore, the trauma must have been caused by the sex, despite us having absolutely no objective explanation or evidence that children even in societies where it was more acceptable felt traumatized by witnessing sex, and not taking into account the harsh social reaction that we have to such encounters.

A child may be more likely to be manipulated into having sex, but this doesn’t mean that just because a child has sex, it must be the result of manipulation.

Just as a child may be more likely to be manipulated into anything else as well, but it’d be bad to therefore just ban adults from interacting with children, because obviously not all interactions between children and adults are automatically the result of abuse, this doesn’t suddenly change when it comes to sex just because you find it disgusting.

For example, just because some narcissistic, abusive parents force their children to participate in beauty contests, that doesn’t mean it’s reasonable for me to assume that whenever a little girl is wearing make-up, it must be the result of abuse, so I go up to the person that gave them the make up and decapitate them, because little girls can never under any circumstance consent to wearing make-up you sick fucks.

It’s better put a ban on the abuse element, not on harmless acts, you don’t arrest every person teaching children about religion just because some radical islamists try to use the freedom to teach children about religion to manipulate children into joining terrorist organizations like ISIS, that would be unfair to all the peaceful ones, and arresting all adults that have sex with willing minors because some manipulate and/or abuse minors is just as stupid of a concept.

I believe the pedophobes that there are probably many studies that show some kind of vague correlation between sex in childhood and various malaise, but that’s it, a strong case of correlation not implying causation. You could say children of gay couples are more likely to be depressed in a society where homophobes raise their children to harass children of homosexual couples, but this doesn’t prove that they’re depressed just because their parents are homosexuals.

They never demonstrate any conclusive proof that children even in societies were pedosexuality was acceptable felt traumatized after having had some sort of sexual experience, or scientifically explain in any way why we should assume that children would automatically be traumatized by sex itself, what is this mechanism of how wanted sexual encounters traumatize children.

Just like we can demonstrate that alcohol destroyed livers in the past as well as present, can you show us any piece of evidence that children have always been traumatized as a result of having had sex that they voluntarily engaged in, even in societies where it was more acceptable?

How, why and when does trauma magically poof into existence out of the great nowhere for no tangible, explicable reason whatsoever?

They just assume that correlation equals causation because they feel disgusted by it, similar to how homophobes in a society where they frown upon homosexuals would in their bigotry assume that children of homosexual couples are depressed because sex=evil, then may even ask you to disprove their theory that sex in childhood is intrinsically harmful, a theory that they’ve never proven to begin with, like a christian fundamentalist would ask you to prove that god doesn’t exist without demonstrating any proof for god first.

You can potentially raise children to feel bad about anything, humans had moral panics about all sorts of trivial things such as certain cutlery like forks in the past.

Your social delusions are more malleable than you likely think they are, with enough social indoctrination, there’s a possibility we could also create a cult in which giving children tomato sauce on their spaghetti would be seen as the ultimate crime against humanity, and children that have been given tomato sauce by an older friend would most likely grow up to feel quite bad about it.

Certainly, you could equally set up a study demonstrating a correlation between having been given tomato sauce by an older friend as a child and feeling traumatized, but would that in any way prove that tomato sauce is in any way inherently damaging to children no matter what, even if they wanted to have the tomato sauce on their spaghetti?

No, it would not. We simply know that it is not, we could show in an unbiased laboratory setting that if a child willingly consumes tomato sauce, it would have the overall same positively stimulating effect on said child as it would on the person over the socially acceptable age for tomato sauce consumption of their primitive tribe, so if the child wanted to have the meal, wasn’t forced to eat it, there should be no intrinsic harm element to tomato sauce itself.

And the same goes for orgasms. In an unbiased laboratory setting, we could demonstrate that if a child willingly receives a sexually pleasurable sensation, it has the same exact positively stimulating effect on them as on the person over the holy age of their primitive tribe, so if the child wanted to have the pleasurable sensation of relief from sexual frustration, wasn’t forced to receive it, there should be no intrinsic harm element to sexual pleasure itself.

So if the child wanted to have the harmless pleasurable sensation, it’s perfectly reasonable to assume that the only thing making sex harmful for the child is the consequences bestowed by the bigoted, pedophobic society they live in, that’s the only thing left that we could realistically point to.

When pushed to this point in the conversation, the pedophobes then sometimes like to commit the argumentum ad baculum fallacy immediately and say it doesn’t matter by what the harm is caused.

”But we still live in that society then and even if it’s just the social consequences that traumatize the child, well, then there are still consequences either way, so no excuses!”.

It is a cheap appeal to a self-created consequence, just because someone harms you or someone else in response to doing something, that doesn’t actually demonstrate the act itself you committed to be inherently harmful, the pedophobes are simply appealing to consequences they themselves are creating at this point like any other bigot althroughout history, it’s an extrinsic harm, not an intrinsic harm.

Don’t be a whore or else I’ll rape you for it, therefore, being a whore is bad.

Don’t be a faggot or else I’ll beat you for it, therefore, being a faggot is bad.

Don’t have sex with the child or else I’ll traumatize the child by beating you in front of it for it, therefore, child sex is bad.

Example, let’s say a child consents to buy chocolate ice cream, now some insane person escaped from the madhouse comes around the corner and castrates and shoots the iceman in front of said child because he believes that children are terribly harmed by eating chocolate ice cream without having studied every single ingredient in it first.

Consenting to taste ice cream requires rocket scientist level intelligence in this person’s distorted view of reality, obviously the problem here is the deranged person, not the act of selling ice cream itself.

On the other hand, when it comes to a pedophile giving a child a pleasurable sensation in the form of an orgasm rather than chocolate ice cream, society mistreats the pedophile in front of the child for it, for example:

An angry father may beat the shit out of the pedophile in front of the child.

In general, the parents may act hysterically towards the child.

The child is sent to a therapy indoctrination center where they receive strong social pressure to ”accept their rape”, the child feels social pressure to go along with this narrative for social acceptance.

They may feel responsible that their partner that gave them a harmless pleasurable sensation is sent to jail.

They hear others joking how said partner is now going to get raped in the ass in said jail by a big black cock upon dropping the soap.

As that then indeed upsets the child, they then falsely attribute that trauma to the entirely harmless pleasurable sensation rather than their primitive, uncivilized conduct towards the pedophile, when the real problem is them and no one else, just like in the example of the person castrating and shooting the iceman in front of the child, concluding that icecream is harmful because the child was traumatized by seeing him castrate and shoot the iceman.

We have at best proof of a correlation between sex in childhood and trauma in a society where sex between children and pedophiles is systematically demonized and violently interferred with, that’s all, the compilation of actual evidence of voluntarily received orgasms harming children is zero.

Or, the pedophobe simply resorts to denying that children could be sexual, that can also happen and is frequently a snuck in premise that the pedophobe presupposes to be the case, they deny that such children as the 8 year old girl that would voluntarily hump said pedophile’s leg even exist, so if child sex is happening it must always be the result of some kind of manipulation or scheme by an evil pedophile, but that is all that it is, a denial of objective reality.

Again, children have genitals, and through said genitals they can find out about the existence of sexual pleasure, this is a fact, whether or not that conflicts with the worldview of some delusional parent who wants to think of children as innately asexual. Many simply imagine all sex as being stereotypically penetrative rather than a sensation, so when they hear sex they already start to make all kinds of implicit assumptions again, imagining someone anally raping an infant.

If it were true that children are purely asexual and could never want to have sex for any reason at any point in the first place, then it would of course be reasonable to assume that whenever they are having sex, it must be the result of some sort of prior manipulation, that they’re being violated – fair enough, then that would be the problem.

But this is not the case in objective reality, the pedophobe simply frequently has a delusional fairytale narrative where children aren’t sexual beings and all sexual impulses in children are said to be caused by some kind of external manipulation, i.e the pedominati on disney channel told children they must have sex and unfortunately they ended up believing it, they’re putting something in the water to make everyone gay and also sexualize children although children would obviously never be sexual on their own.

It is like someone finds children too cute to admit that they are also capable of something dirty, like defecation, so they opt to completely degrade their children’s welfare by forcing them to shit into their pants until 18 (masturbation/abstinence) instead of giving them a toilet to shit in (the more exciting sexual experience with someone else).

The pedophobe insists the 12 year old boy is only allowed to jerk off to a hot pornstar fucking, not stick his dick inside her much softer, pleasant vagina if he were given the chance as that would supposedly then traumatize him for life to have the more efficient sexual outlet. Somehow soft vagina is traumatizing, bony hand whilst staring at the exact same vagina on a screen is not.

Children masturbate, I masturbated as a child and definitely under 18 purely for the harmless pleasurable sensations of relief from sexual frustration this generated inside my penis and so do many other children and minors in this day and age as well, there is absolutely zero reason to assume that if I as a child simply got this relief from humping an older girl’s ass as opposed to a pillow or some other object, I would have somehow been horribly devastated by it.

The problem is the pedophobes, sex is not an intrinsically harmful activity, so if they are legitimately interested in it with another child or even with a pedophile, there is zero reason to assume that this would be harmful outside of the confines of the social consequences the pedophobes bestow on children and their partners, they are creating this very problem they lament by acting like deranged chimpanzees in front of their children upon discovering that the child is not the asexual cute little accessory that they in their delusional fantasy worlds have made it out to be.

As such, it’s more sensible to simply remove the child sex taboo rather than trying to eliminate pedosexuality, just like it’d also be more sensible to remove the anti-gay taboo in Saudi Arabia rather than homosexuality, or any other taboo so as long as the act it demonizes is not legitimately harmful like burning puppies and kittens alive for example, something that is guaranteed, in principle, to always cause harm, suffering, negative sensations.

If the only bad thing about an activity is that irrational bigots will act negatively in response to it, the problem is of course the irrational bigots, not the act itself, and that is the point here, there’s no evidence for the intrinsic harmfulness of child sex.

Don’t socially transform a non-problem into a problem, it is no better than demonizing any other intrinsically harmless act, like giving children a certain type of food, like spaghetti with tomato sauce, and then pretending that the food itself is harmful just because society harmed someone in response to giving it to children. In the same way, a rational agent judging from outside, with no indoctrinated pre-existing bias from your society would look at your idiotic pedophile hysteria.

Antinatalism, family obligations and parental delusions.

An idea frequently instinctively held by society is that children ought to be grateful to their parents for having created and taken care of them, perhaps are even in debt to them in some way for that.

When you take into account the certain basic facts of life, primarily that:

all the goods in life, like food and water, are only needed once a need, a condition of suffering, like hunger and thirst via the creation of the child is created

that the child really didn’t exist before it actually existed, somehow worse off in an unborn purgatory, writhing in agony over not being alive

what the parents in reality did by creating said child is creating a desire machine that needs constant satisfaction, a deficit, not doing some poor child from the unborn purgatory a favor by finally forcing it into earth-bound existence

this whole viewpoint that children ought to be grateful for being given certain goods by their parents that are entirely at fault for having created the child’s need, want, desire to obtain those goods starts to seem rather absurd to anyone who is halfway rational.

A good analogy to use here is the fireman starting a fire to put it out again in order to play the hero.

You wouldn’t be grateful to a fireman for saving you from a burning house if he’s at fault for having caused the fire in the first place, of course, extinguishing the problem again after deliberately having created it is the very least he can do, virtuous would only be if he extinguished a fire that came about by accident or was set by someone else.

And breeders do a similar crime, they create a problem, a deficit by creating an organism with needs, wants, desires that it is at least at this young stage more or less incapable of fulfilling itself, then fulfill some of its needs, wants, desires and expect gratitude in return for it from their victim despite having caused that very problem of the child experiencing conditions of need, want, desire in the first place because they didn’t abort it before it had the chance to become conscious.

”But I fed them and put a roof over their head, so they should be grateful!”

But I saved the child from drowning in the sea after I deliberately threw it into the sea, so they should be grateful! But I pulled the knife out of that person’s chest after I deliberately stuck the knife into the chest, so they should be grateful!

Yes, after having created their need to ingest food and not freeze to death on the street, in a disabled state where they are incapable of even fulfilling those needs themselves, you fulfilled some of their needs that you yourself created.

So you essentially put someone into a degraded condition, then took care of the problem you intentionally caused, you defecated all over the floor and expect a medal for at best halfway wiping it off again (never fully because the children will experience needs, wants, desires with no failsafe guarantee of fulfillment until they are dead).

Your parents wiping the shit off of your ass after having created you in a disabled state of deprivation where you’re unable to do it yourself was the very least they could do, to let the shit rot on your asshole until you get some kind of disease would have just been worse than it already was to create someone in said state of disability and deprivation.

It would be like the fireman instead just letting the house he deliberately set on fire burn into the ground, so what do these narcissistic breeders expect, the nobel prize for altruism for not having committed an extra horrific violation like first creating a hungry child and then letting it starve to death on the streets afterwards?

”Some children don’t have parents that care for them so be more grateful!”

Some firefighters that set people’s houses on fire in order to play the hero by coming to the rescue and extinguishing it again afterwards, don’t actually even extinguish the fires that they deliberately set again, and just let the whole thing burn into the ground instead. I could have done that as well, ingrate, you should be thanking me that after I set your house on fire deliberately, I saved you from burning to death in it, I’m a true hero and wish to be acknowledged as such.

Children aren’t in debt to their parents, it’s the exact other way around, they have created the child in need of care, it didn’t create itself in that state and then offered the parents to sign a contract promising it will later on compensate them for taking care of the problem, so to brag about having taken care of it is essentially just like the fireman bragging about having extinguished the fire he deliberately created.

Parental arguments to instill obedience into their children in general are often times completely non-sensical, kind of highlighting the mentality of many procreators in fact and how they justify themselves, by might makes right, I can so I will, I’ll impose life and you have to take it in the ass.

”You live with me and I take care of you, so you have to do what I say, as long as you live in my house you have to abide by my rules!”

The parents again are at fault for the child living in their house due to age related inability to move out, which they are at fault for because they have created it with the knowledge that this stage of life will exist, and because they and the rest of parents probably also made a law that says the child can’t move out until a certain age, so what the parents/slave owners making this argument are essentially saying is that because they forced someone to be dependent on them, the slave should now do as they say.

By this argument, if I abduct you and lock you into my basement, you should be obligated to suck my cock, because you live in my basement that I have forced you to live in, from which you have little to no chance of escaping successfully and I’m taking care of you.

”If you don’t like my rules, 5 year old, then why don’t you move out? Oh, too bad, you can’t, so you have to do what I say!”

What kind of sadistic fascist gets off on playing this type of game, what kind of reasonably sensible and intellectually honest individual would think this is a good game to play?

The all known, apathetic towards the child’s suffering:

‘Life is not fair”

Also a great insight. Life is not fair, I created life, so basically all I’m saying is that I am unfair, I create unfair circumstances.

Sorry that you don’t always get what you want, I intentionally forced you into this state of constant wanting and needing without guarantee of fulfillment because I am entirely unfair, just in case this might be helpful information to you at some point. It’s life, not me, although I created it.

It always tends to be said with this subliminal tone as if it should just be obvious to the child, as if the child supposedly has agreed to life’s unfairness in some way, so then it would be reasonable to remind the child that this is what they signed up for, as if they are repeating the guidelines of a game that the child consented to by signing a contract before being born, and now that child is being irresponsible by not following the contract, so the procreators have to remind the child of the rules, that’s the risk the child took, now they have to deal with life being unfair, should’ve thought about that before you came out of my vagina.

When in reality though, of course no one ever agrees to be made conscious, because they’re not conscious before they become conscious, so again, it’s the procreators deciding to awaken the dead into a world that they may not like, so saying ”well, that’s just life, deal with it” in that context is pretty much like randomly shoving dog shit into someone’s face and then arrogantly saying ”well, that’s just dog shit, deal with it”, as if your victim knew what was coming for them and signed up for this treatment in some way.

”But kids have to learn that life is unfair and that they can’t always get what they want because life’s hard and they gotta deal with that when they grow up, little billy has to learn he can’t get the new toy so that then later on he won’t snap and rape a bitch when she refuses to let him stick his peepee in her pussy.”

So children have to learn to become desensitized to suffering, in order to avoid an even bigger amount of suffering that will face them later on, knowing how to deal with life’s suffering.

But why are they in a situation where they even have to try to avoid this bigger amount of suffering later on in the first place? A good question to ask.

Right, because you forced them into existence, you didn’t abort him before he became conscious.

And was forcing the child into existence necessary in order to help them avoid a worse form of suffering, like it is necessary once they exist and have to learn that life is unfair in order to avoid more frustration with this fundamental unfairness later on?

No, because as far as I know, we have absolutely zero evidence for the existence of an unborn purgatory in which children that are not brought into earthly bound existence are writhing in agony over not being brought into earthly bound existence, the suffering caused by procreation is not instrumental to preventing a worse harm from befalling the child.

It is only instrumental to solving some suffering in the parents, erasing one of their deficits, i.e their desire to have the child, so in the process of getting rid of that one deficit, they create a whole lifetime of deficits in an effort to fix one of their deficits, so it’s necessary for the child to learn to deal with the fact that life is unfair in the same way it’s necessary for you to learn how to deal with poverty because I just can’t give up gambling with your money, woe is me.

On life and reproduction.

(Sentient) life is a problem state demanding of constant fixing. What you do when you create life is essentially to throw something into a state of deprivation, struggling to constantly tame/fulfill their needs/wants/desires, accumulation of urges and compulsions you have imposed on it by having created it.

Imagine it as being trapped in a hole, the further you sink, the more you suffer, the closer you get to the surface, the more you feel relieved of it again, but you cannot climb out of the hole, you’ll always sink down again and have to keep struggling to remain as close to the surface of the hole as possible until you are dead.

Now that the organism has been created, it is constantly suffering, experiencing desire, deprivation. Hunger, thirst, constipation, sexual frustration, fatigue every single day to differing degrees, and proneness to worse future suffering, e.g. all sorts of accidents, drug addiction, loneliness, cancer, paralysis, the list goes on and on.

You fulfill a desire, then either a new desire pops up (e.g. appetite after hunger) or the old desire comes back in time and you’ll have to fulfill that initial desire again to avoid more suffering.

You must eat or you suffer hunger, you must drink or you suffer thirst, you must defecate or you constipate, you must breathe or you suffer suffocation, you must masturbate/have sex or you are sexually frustrated and tense, you must sleep or you fatigue, you must socialize or you feel lonely, etc.

We can use pretty much whatever example we want, we must obtain pleasure or we suffer, that’s the deal of sentient life.

Of course getting higher to the surface of the deprivation hole feels good, but would it really be an important priority to climb to the surface of the hole if you were never thrown into it in the first place? I don’t think so, I may enjoy a fresh breath of air, but I know that before I existed, there was no suffocating version of me trapped in an unborn purgatory, waiting to be brought to earth so that I can finally breathe clearly.

Creating a problem because mitigating and/or solving it is good.

Considering there was no kind of desire problem prior to the existence of an individual that demanded for some kind of happy moment to distract the individual, justifying reproduction on grounds of some kind of good in life is akin to justifying setting someone’s house on fire because extinguishing the fire again is good, giving someone AIDS because AIDS treatment is good, breaking someone’s leg because painkillers are good, throwing someone into the ocean because saving them from drowning is good, breaking the vase because halfway repairing it again is good, shitting on someone’s carpet because cleaning it off afterwards is good.

It’s an irrational idea, creating a (light to severe) torture mechanism just for the sake of sometimes stopping the suffering for the victim to appreciate what it’s like to not be burdened, for which they had absolutely no use prior to being burdened with it anyway, all the suffering could be prevented by abstaining from creating sentient life in the first place and no unborn child would miss out on anything, there is no child right now being tormented in the unborn purgatory waiting to be released, suffering from a need to be suffering from needs, procreators create all need.

It might be good to clean shit off of the carpet when there is already shit on it, but you wouldn’t think I’d be doing you a favor if I defecated onto your carpet for the good of cleaning it off again, most likely incompletely. It might be good to repair the vase when it is already broken, but you wouldn’t think I’d be doing you a favor if I broke it for the good of trying to repair it again, most likely incompletely.

To create sentient life in and of itself is to harm, you cannot reproduce without breaking the do-no-harm principle.

Let’s say I could bestow desire by snapping my fingers, or there were desire serum, so I could inject different desires into lifeforms, inject you with a substance in your sleep that makes it so that unless you stare at a red painted wall at least once a day and ejaculate into a purple cupboard, you won’t be able to fall asleep anymore.

The reason why everyone would most likely look at me as an asshole for doing that, but not their parents for giving all them all sorts of burning needs for:

food
taste satisfaction
shelter
resources you’ll have to do possibly dissatisfying work for
constant entertainment
acceptance, reassurance
affection
sex

with this need mechanism perhaps even leading to needs that are hard or nearly impossible to fulfill, which a good chunk of individuals are suffering from, like for example the need to:

stay healthy and simultaneously be an alcoholic or eat greasy, salty, sugary foods
copulate with more females than you have opportunity to copulate with
go back into the past you may feel more attached to than the present
not decompose and die, although you inevitably will anyway
be someone else that you are not

or perhaps even needs of which the fulfillment will directly necessitate the frustration of someone else’s needs, like for example the need to:

rape others for your sexual relief
make yourself feel superior to others by subjugating them

is because every sentient being in existence has been harmed in this way, with the evidence being that they currently exist, so you most likely assume it must be this way and take it for granted without ever questioning it, as opposed to me injecting someone with desire serum. It is simply impossible to create a sentient lifeform with the main function to suffer for constant need fulfillment without causing suffering, to create a sentient life is by itself to create suffering, it’s directly entailed.

It’s the creation of preferences that demand constant satisfaction, needing is a problem, you are in need of something, it is a deficit that if not alleviated in time will only intensify. And this is the act breeders engage in, they put you in need, similar to injecting you with heroin, except they bestow not one little deprivation by snapping fingers or using hypothetical desire serum, they create numerous desire wounds without lifelong, failsafe guarantee of bandaid supply.

In that sense, the more frustration is experienced by the victim, or the more frustration would be experienced by others if they were satisfied, the crueler the act of reproducing them – and you don’t know what the victim will win in the suffering lottery beforehand, someone is going to pull the brain tumor ticket, someone is going to pull the ”you can only orgasm if you set little kittens on fire” ticket.

You create an addiction, for example, a dependency on sex. Now perhaps the organism will always be able to find a hole to stick their penis in just in time, before the suffering gets out of hand, perhaps you’ll create an ugly elephant man experiencing lifelong loneliness though. You create an addiction, for example, a dependency on air. Now perhaps the organism will always be able to breathe in and out clearly just fine, perhaps you’ll create a child with cystic fibrosis or lung cancer though.

Every sentient organism experiences needs, wants, desires, every sentient organism is being harmed. Some victims are lucky enough to always get a painkiller just in time, others are not.

I would say that considering that if you were never put into this situation in the first place, you would not be suffering from not having your needs/wants/desires fulfilled (because you wouldn’t exist in the first place), the suffering of the ones unlucky enough to not receive painkillers is not justified.

The ugly elephant man’s unfulfilled sexual need to cum inside a hot pussy is not justified by someone else cumming inside hot pussy for him, because that happy individual would not be trapped in an unborn purgatory missing hot pussy if no one ever took the risk of creating either of these two individuals.

The dissatisfied child with leukemia isn’t justified by the happy child without leukemia, because that happy child would not be trapped in an unborn purgatory missing their life if no one ever took the risk of creating either of these two individuals.

You’re creating a problem, i.e the sentient organism needs to be pumped full of pleasure or else perhaps tragic suffering will ensue, and you created the sentient organism…with no guarantee that they can even be pumped full of sufficient pleasure at all times.

Our conditions of suffering may not only be impossible to alleviate sometimes, they also demand one to make others suffer in the process of alleviating your suffering, so perhaps your desire machine will also harm others.

Sometimes in this game, the relief of pain will depend on the pain of another organism. Perhaps you’ll create some organism that can only get off if they brutally rape and subjugate someone else, perhaps the organism will be an animal abuser their entire life, then in the metaphor, you basically created a fire that can only be extinguished by setting someone else on fire, you can only give the one organism the painkiller if you stab the other organism and let them bleed out on the road.

Childhood bullying is an almost instinctive, natural occurence, it’s a good example of sentient organisms being naturally in such a shitty insecure condition that they’re always aching to get a relief, even by making others suffer, in this case alleviating the suffering to be in control and feel powerful, this bad instinct comes naturally, civilized behavior on the other hand may take hard work.

It’s arguably a harm, you are creating states of deprivation, bestowing the itch that then demands to constantly be scratched, with no 100% guarantee that the itch can even be successfully scratched all of the time, possibly creating itches that can’t be scratched adequately or itches that can only be scratched by giving someone else the itch.

But let’s even assume we established some sort of as close to utopian scenario as possible where every suffering/need could be immediately alleviated, all itches scratched in due time.

At that point I’d be less concerned about procreation but I still wouldn’t say that it’s obligatory, because likewise, you still wouldn’t be able to miss being here if no one ever brings you into existence, so it doesn’t seem like a big deal.

It’s completely solving a problem (no life at all) vs. alleviating it as greatly as possible (utopia). If we exist in the utopia, we still have needs/wants/desires that if left unattended would lead to greater and greater suffering, but it’s just always being alleviated just in time.

Good without suffering seems impossible because pleasure and suffering exist in comparison to each other similar to bright and dark or wet and dry, when you take away suffering aou have pleasure and when you take away pleasure you have more suffering again, I don’t see any kind of neutral point in between where it’s clearly divided and then we just cut off suffering and have solved the suffering problem once and for all.

If you have more pleasure, you have less pain. If you have less pain, you have more pleasure, so I think the closest we’d get to a utopia would be perfectly alleviating the problem, always putting a bandaid on the problem just in time.

So we might create pain still, but then we always perfectly alleviate it. We have AIDS, but we also have the perfect cure for AIDS on hand. We create fires, but we also have the perfect fire extinguishing technology in place.

But if there’s no problem to fix anymore because life wouldn’t exist anymore, then I don’t think that having no utopia would be a problem either of course.

The endless orgasm utopia would be a great tool to have in place in a case someone is brought into existence and feels frustrated, but it certainly wouldn’t be a reason to create it in the first place, just like I would say that the existence of the cure for AIDS wouldn’t be a reason to infect someone with it in the first place just to then perfectly cure them of it afterwards.

The perfect problem solving means don’t obligate us to create a new problem, there is no need for desire fulfillment before desire is created, it doesn’t follow that the suffering of desire must be created merely because the perfect means to alleviate it would exist.

Perfectly alleviated suffering > suffering left to fester and intensify in our current world where desire fires are set with no guarantee of extinguishing

but

zero suffering > perfectly alleviated suffering.

And of course, on a more practical level, it simply also isn’t an argument for causing suffering by reproduction right now, just because of the possibility of a utopia in the distant future, that’d be like setting the forest on fire before the water hose was even invented.

Religion is a bad argument.

Once you start appealing to one fantasy construct with no evidence behind it over another, it’s pretty much no more coherent of an argument than any other appeal to a different fantasy construct with no evidence behind it.

This type of double standard underlies essentially the vast majority of religious arguments, take for example the cosmological argument that the religious make to ”prove” god, i.e something cannot come from nothing, the universe must have been made by something, therefore, god.

First this then obviously forces them into the position of having to explain what caused god to happen, where they’d contradict themselves by stating that he came from nothing, although they just stated that everything must come from something, but there’s also simply no reason to arrive at the conclusion of god, rather than any other fantasy creature.

Something can’t come from nothing, therefore, santa clause. Why not allah instead of god, why not any other fantasy creature one could possibly come up with? There’s no reason.

Pascal’s wager – why not just follow god’s rules, just to be sure you’re not going to hell? Well, why not follow any other rule by a given fantasy creature just to be sure, the invisible gnome in my ass says he needs all your money, why not just give me all your money to prevent the third world war from happening, just to be sure?

Good question, you can substantiate your god just as much as I can substantiate the gnome in my ass, after all. Also good luck in practice, trying to follow different rules of different fantasy creatures without breaking one, what if the gnome in my ass says something entirely different from what the christian god or allah would say?

Or take the presuppositionalist argument, i.e just an inane presupposition that the religious like to make, to have knowledge, science, reason about anything, we must presuppose god exists. Again, just switch god for any other word, we must assume gnome in my ass to have knowledge, science, reason about anything, why not, why think of your god in particular immediately? It’s based on irrationality, gut instincts, intuition, social indoctrination, not some kind of rational basis.

The fact that many more irrational idiots might believe in a god than in the easter bunny or the gnome in my ass is obviously not an argument either, just a cheap appeal to popularity, many irrational idiots also believed the earth was flat and no older than 6000 years old, that doesn’t make it any more true because of the sheer number of irrational idiots believing in it.

The fact that I cannot 100% prove that your imaginary friend does not exist is obviously not an argument either, neither can you prove that the invisible gnome living inside my anus does not exist, you can’t disprove something for which no proof existed to begin with, so would you give me all your money because I’m telling you the gnome in my anus needs it to prevent the third world war and you can’t disprove that he exists? No.

I need to prove that there is a gnome living inside my asshole first, then you can disprove its existence, if I never even demonstrate any proof for it in the first place, then it cannot be disproven again – because there is no proof for it, just like there isn’t for god.

God is clearly not different from santa clause or the easter bunny in the sense that there is as much evidence for one as for the other, so if you seriously accept ”god told me to” as some kind of great philosophical argument in any kind of ethical discussion, for let’s say tying a child to a table and ripping its foreskin off with no anesthesia, you’d have to accept getting raped by someone with a sharp object as well because the ”the easter bunny told them to”, that’s the exact same reasoning you’re employing.

And finally, even if a god, a deity of some kind existed, to say that we should do what it says because it is a deity is obviously also just an appeal to authority, you’d still need to demonstrate why what the deity says is even in any way recommendable for us as sentient organisms, just like a doctor isn’t right in saying cigarettes prevent cancer just because he’s a doctor, the deity wouldn’t be right in anything it said just because it’d be a deity, it stands up to scrutiny or it doesn’t, just saying it’s written in a book about said deity that it’s always right isn’t evidence.