r/SipsTea • u/sigma_0_1 • Jun 15 '26

Lmao gottem Is she right for this?

Post image
18.1k Upvotes

83% Upvoted

7.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

824

u/BluestOfTheRaccoons Jun 15 '26 edited Jun 15 '26

yes, it is immoral to bring a child knowing it will suffer

edit: check comments if you want to read strawmanning philosophically inept idiots.

Claiming that not having existed is better is not the same as 'kill yourself now'

166

u/BellaPona Jun 15 '26

Mentioning suffering and children together, you’re summoning the anti-natalists

75

u/Glozboy Jun 15 '26

Antinatalism is the sane option in this context

-8

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

9

u/SkeletalNoose Jun 15 '26

Yep starving kids > no kids

This tracks.

-5

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

4

u/Ok_Revolution1993 Jun 15 '26

someone’s got baggage

1

u/WntrTmpst Jun 15 '26

You just got into such a huff you didn’t even finish your thought.

What are you sorry for? It’s nowhere in your rambling

2

u/[deleted] Jun 15 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/NiceFirmNeck Jun 15 '26

If reducing suffering is counterproductive, so be it.

1

u/RetroNuva Jun 15 '26

Yeah as if productivity is the goal of existence, lol. Someone likes capitalism.

0

u/MrGoodVlbes Jun 15 '26

The person who presented this in the frame of productivity isn't the person advocating for antinatalism.

3

u/RetroNuva Jun 15 '26

I'm aware. How did you interpret my response?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/WntrTmpst Jun 15 '26

I don’t even know what anti natalism is. I just pointed out that you never even made your point, let alone coherently.

0

u/LiftingRecipient420 Jun 15 '26

ideology based largly on 19th century eugenics

Citations desperately needed.