>>40779044


This is something I wrote that you might like. What you are saying, is radical, don't be gaslit. Humans are willing slaves.

Having children is bad, there's no need to promote life before securing happiness. Society is a distraction from happiness.
Happiness is good. Anything that distracts from happiness is bad. These should be your definitions of good and bad. If they terrify you it's because you've been told all your life that things that don't always bring you happiness are "good," pragmatic, sacrifice happiness in some area of your life to introduce it in another.
A car is "good" because it gets you to work despite traffic. Meat is "good" because of the taste despite the process. Our relation with god is "good" because of blessings despite our sin.
There's a point where you accept "good" to be at peace with how this world has failed you. You submit to it's dominaton of your mind in hopes of being spared. Or cling to a sense of identity full of familiar suffering, that began when your parents forced you to compromise in childhood, taught you "right" from "wrong". So you inevitably loose track of good and miss opportunities for a happier life.
The purpose of my rehtoric is to help address all suffering. Whether we do is irrelevant, it exposes the confusion and suffering "good" rehtoric reinforces.
We should acknowledge everyone has equal access to good: the murderer, the abuser, the cheater, the stealer. If that makes them happy, we don't have to allow them. We must understand what makes them happy to maximize happiness in society, not hide behind "good" rehtoric. Not call their suffering good.
If everyone's satisfied there's no need to have children. There's no need to live a single second longer in fact, if we all die happy there's no one to lack happiness or be distracted. Explain why our rehtoric should not reflect this fact, why my way of thinking wouldn't make most happier.

If you want here's my disc: slavestay

>>40489045

>no authoritative source that suggest life must be enjoyed

Wrong. I am an authoritative source. So are others. I'm just using the dictionary when you throw out these terms btw. Whatever else you could mean I have no idea.

>>40490908

>What we seek has no bearing on what we are owed

Wrong. I do not have to value other's sense of morality. If I say I am owed something I am owed something. We share words which are labels like the word owed, and nothing you say can change that. If there is some idea you are using to represent what is owed, that I do not have the access to, you can explain and I may or may not agree.

>>40436214
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa giwtwmgiwtwmgiwtwm

too old to be groomed

>>34053045

Add me if you're open minded. Don't be sensitive or aggresive. Don't care what we talk about.