A couple years back Chip Smith asked me to share my thoughts on antinatalism, in the vein of my Stirner-flavored intro to “The Myth of Natural Rights“. At the time he was considering the more black-nail-polish title “Against Life, Against Death”. I cranked up the snark factor and sent it off, then forgot about it for a while. I was reminded of it again when Jim Crawford highlighted Feminist X’s egoist justification for having children and asked if he would like to read the essay. He said sure, so I sent it off and now he’s got it up over there. The comments aren’t open there until he posts a rebuttal, but they are open here.
VERY BELATED UPDATE: Jim’s rebuttal. Chip linked to it in the comments, but not everybody reads those.
Entitled to an Opinion 
March 23, 2010 at 7:54 pm
The cause of pessimism and anti-natalism is individual ill-being.
August 9, 2014 at 1:51 pm
You wrote this 4 yrs ago. but i hope you read my answer. Most of the times i read BS all over the web i just dont waste my time responding, this time i just couldnt help it.
If you can live in this planet and be an optimist, there are two possibilities: you either had a relatively easy life, spend your day reading people’s magazine and the kardashians show and when you see a homeless man (or any shit in this world for that matter) look the other way or you are simply a person with a very low IQ. Or a combination of both.
Some people, the vast minority of this world, for some reason have an easy life, some rough here and there, but overall an easy life, no big health issues, no big financial problems, good families, etc. It s very uncommon but it exits.
I know a woman married to a lawyer making 200K a year, “staying home mom” they call them, she has 4 (four) healthy kids. She has maids of course, so basically she scratches her holes pretty much all day. GO TALK TO HER ABOUT ANTINATALISM.
Now if you can sit in front of a computer and use a keyboard i bet you have some brain to agree that that is not true for a good 80% ( at least) of the planet. I mean there are in this world aprox. 20.000 ( twenty tthousand ) illnesess/disorders, 26% of the population has some kind of mental disorders ranging from mild anxiety to really fucked up psycopaths.
i mean i could write 3 days straight about the bad in this world. One in four will develop cancer in their lifetime. lol. Millions of people in this country alone lost their life savings to some 800 different ponzi schemes, if you think Bernie Maddof was alone, you are wrong. Basically you want to bring kids in a world where people are out to screw you and your government dont give a shit??????
You must be the kind : “Im gonna raise my kids to be good people” or “What did i do wrong?” ( when your kids grow up to be drug addicts, depressive, suicidal, or whatever). These are the kind that thinks they can shape their kids to be healthy normal individuals. You may not know this but no matter what you fucking do, your kids will develop a personality of their own. I could give you a zilliion cases.
It s been shown statistically that women who do not procreate have a higher IQ on average.
The fact that you want to procreate so you have something to do, so you can find a pourposse for your life or please your parents so they can have grandsons and even show them that you are “norrmal” by dumb/retard standards, why dont you find a hobby ???
People are horrified by the prospect of getting old and been alone, without kids, so you procreate to fill that emptyness you are so afraid of. THAT IS SELFISH, DUMB AND SUPERFICIAL. You are willing to play russian roulette with somebody’s life. Be cause make no mistake, that’s exactly what you will do. Fate will deal whatever card they want no matter what you do. Ever heard about asthma, leukemia, austism, bullying, carcinogens, etc?????????
Most people secretely despise their lives, there are things people will never admit, like been unhappy or regretting having kids.
I could go on but changing one idiots brain it s a waste of time, humanity have chosen its fate a long time ago, the average world IQ is 98, no wonder we have overpopulation and degradation of resources. You are an optimist so i dont think you know how many children died of starvation by the time you finish reading this.
The government should step in and save people from their own stupidity like we saw in the 2008 real estate crisis where millions bought real estate tthey couldnt afford just be cause everybody was buying.
Schopenhauer said: if children were brought into the world by an act of pure reason alone, would the human race continue to exist? Would not a man rather have so much sympathy with the coming generation as to spare it the burden of existence, or at any rate not take it upon himself to impose that burden upon it in cold blood?[9]
I MEAN TO SAY: JUST BE CAUSE YOU MAY HAVE HAD AN OK LIFE THAT SHOULDNT KEEP YOU FROM LOOKING AROUND YOU AND SEE WHAT IS GOING ON IN THE WORLD.
Im not trying to convince you of anything, i just cant help sometimes when i read these kind of nonsense.
sorry my english sucks. good day.
March 23, 2010 at 8:44 pm
BTW your polemical wit is really a riot, to my ear. I only read a third of it though, I’m pretty ADD’d at the moment.
August 9, 2014 at 2:08 pm
BTW about me: In case you think i had the most horrible life, i didnt, i had good ones and bad ones, just like most people. But i have seen how horrible life can be to some people. You just need to be sensitive to other peoples suffering.
March 23, 2010 at 9:03 pm
You write like I imagine Jasay would have written while he was in his late 20s. Excellent essay, BTW.
March 23, 2010 at 10:53 pm
I don’t think I’d ever heard the phrase “ill-being” before, but google gives 87,600 results. Some of those are results like “ill, being”, so just searching for “illbeing” gives 4,490.
Thanks Tyrosine.
At the time I wrote it I was 21, so I guess I’m just more mature for my age than Jasay.
March 23, 2010 at 11:03 pm
Excellent essay. I’ll be curious to see how he responds.
Any thoughts on Tyler Cowens argument that when we are considering having kids, we should not consider time (i.e., utility of unborn people DOES matter), because time is an illusion?
http://bloggingheads.tv/diavlogs/12109?in=09:21&out=20:35
March 24, 2010 at 7:26 am
“Against Life, Against Death” is still a project. I opted to prioritize Jim’s book (among others) because 1.) anthologies are difficult, and 2.) ALAD requires a lot of writing on my part. It seemed wiser and more practical to flesh out the Nine-Banded brand a bit before taking on something fairly ambitious.
I like TGGP’s essay — which, weird as it seems, I was considering using as a sort of unconventional introduction — because the rolling reference-dense ETaO style is on full display, but disciplined by form. Also, the kid’s brimming over with one-liners.
While I don’t think there is an airtight antinatalist response to what I call “The View from Stirner’s Trench,” I natarally disagree with many of TGGP’s ancillary points. I’m on the road for the next few days and probably won’t have time to write much of a response, but I’ll try to jump into the fray when Jim opens a comment thread.
BTW, there’s a big sale over at Nine-Banded Books. Stock up before stock runs out. Only a few copies of “The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Esssays” remain, and it won’t be reprinted for a while. Jim’s book is at the printer now.
April 3, 2010 at 2:32 pm
rise from your grave, chip smith…to be lung’s undead servitor!
tee-hee!
April 3, 2010 at 4:13 pm
When I become mayor I will appoint you as my deputy. Our first order of business will be to extinguish the sun. Then lung’s reign can be realized, and my loyalty will be assured. One thing at a time.
April 4, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Wise fwom youw gwave!
The sun is gone. It must be brought. You have a rock.
April 4, 2010 at 8:45 pm
http://picasaweb.google.com/jsabotta1/Sketches#5167561750945162082
April 4, 2010 at 8:57 pm
March 24, 2010 at 9:19 am
By the way, if you’re curious to read a more “black nail polish” style exposition on antinatalism and deep pessimism, look for Thomos Ligotti’s new book, “The Conspiracy against the Human Race.” It’s a captivating read, no matter how much you may disagree with Ligotti’s reasoning. I read an advance review copy, but it’s scheduled to be released next month.
March 24, 2010 at 11:04 am
TGGP,
Have you read Benatar’s book in the meantime? If so, does the essay continue to represent your considered thoughts on the matter?
March 24, 2010 at 11:21 am
I’m anti-natalist on a personal level, but I would never bother trying to espouse it to anyone else. it’s a personal choice. since I favor a small* stable happy population of humans, I consider it a lucky accident that increasing wealth seems to reduce population growth.
*relative to available resources. this calculus changes depending on the efficiency of energy use by humans.
March 24, 2010 at 11:41 am
It would be an error to think that all anti-natalism is caused by individual ill-being. The chipper ultra-individualism of Will Wilkinson in that bloggingheads is amazing, and basically amounts to anti-natalism or at least indifference to radical anti-natal outcomes, as he acknowledges.
Cowen, though not proceeding onward to the same conclusion, agreed with the premise that human life probably won’t last until the sun dies. I assume they are thinking mostly of nuclear war and geological and cosmic events (meteors, catastrophic vulcanism – maybe superbursts of harmful radiation from space?). Wilkinson (only) seems to conclude from this that it doesnt matter then, how much longer we last; only the flourishing of individuals matters.
I’m very different. I have a lot of hyperrationalism going on too, but I have a pretty large desire to reproduce. I realize that few biological lineages persist for very long. But I entertain wild hopes. For one, I even hope that our descendants might master the physical world, including time, so enormously that they are able to revivify us (even individuals not cryopreserved). Much less exotically, I simply hope that my beloved Western civilization (or at least Northeast Asian civilization) will continue for some centuries or millennia, and reach greater or lesser transhuman destinies – or merely continue. And likewise for my descendants. I take immortality from this, great consolation. Maybe things won’t work out the way I want, or at least not for long, depending on what long means. But of course I won’t know that for sure at the time of my death. I will therefore have enough hope to cheat death in this limited sense. By the time – if ever – that the end of human life comes to pass, or other conditions come that would bring gnashing despair to my soul, I won’t be conscious, if indeed death is the end of consciousness. Not my problem!
August 9, 2014 at 11:21 am
idiot
August 9, 2014 at 2:20 pm
I have a pretty large desire to reproduce…..
humanity will never cease to amaze me.
March 24, 2010 at 12:38 pm
I ordered a copy of The Myth of Natural Rights and Other Essays and it came out to $5.00 including shipping. I hope it wasn’t some kind of mistake or something.
March 31, 2010 at 3:55 pm
I hope you realize that you have no right to ever actually receive a copy of that book.
March 24, 2010 at 1:22 pm
Ok, TGGP, I hammered it out this morning. Do me a favor? If you see any formatting problems drop me a comment, if you wouldn’t mind. I’m pretty burnt, tremendously hungry, and need a cigarette. Comments are open. Thanks for the exercise, buddy. I owe you two now!
March 24, 2010 at 1:25 pm
Oh, I’ll also go ahead and leave your original up at my place, since my response version required cutting your essay up into pieces. That way readers can enjoy the original without my numerous distractions.
March 24, 2010 at 1:26 pm
Jayson,
Not a mistake. Just trying to clear out some inventory in preparation for phase 2. I mailed your book a couple of hours ago. Thanks for the order.
Chip
March 25, 2010 at 10:04 pm
Link to Jim’s rebuttal:
http://antinatalism.blogspot.com/2010/03/and-here-it-is.html
March 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm
TGGP,
Off topic, but are you half-Jewish? “The Undiscovered Jew” mentioned that you were in a recent comment thread over at UR. Not that there’s anything wrong with that. Just curious.
March 26, 2010 at 8:35 pm
Isak: He has responded here.
I didn’t hear Cowen say time is an illusion in that clip (though given his appreciation Derek Parfit, that wouldn’t be surprising), rathery they seemed to agree that it was good for mothers and fathers to provide a balance of short-term vs long-term.
Chip: Whoops, my bad. Maybe Jim would agree to take it down after some time so it could be exlusive from 9BB. I also think his commentary improves it, so if it were published there could be the thesis on the left-hand page with the commentary on the right (like those old-to-modern English versions of Shakespeare I remember from middle-school), so one could either read the original straight-through or glance over to see a comment.
Rob: No, I still have not read Benatar’s book. I’ve got quite a backlog and I’ve actually never read a real book of philosophy.
Tyrosine: Have you considered donating to a sperm bank?
Jayson Virissimo: Hope you enjoy Myth!
jim: My one complaint with your original was that the paragraphs didn’t have much space between them, but that’s aptly corrected in the post featuring your commentary.
David: No, I’m Irish & Scottish on both sides. I have no Jewish ancestry that I’m aware of.
March 26, 2010 at 9:10 pm
Good catch, TGGP. I hadn’t noticed that the paragraph spacing didn’t translate across formats. I often have that problem with blogspot. Sometimes I have to put in two or three spaces in the original text to get one on the blog. I think I’ve fixed it now. If you see anything else, let me know.
I also just noticed I’ve erroneously had my name linked to the wrong blog…LOL! That’s also fixed.
March 31, 2010 at 12:41 pm
If Crawford will just kill himself, that will save the rest of us lots of suffering!
March 31, 2010 at 2:01 pm
Gene,
For what it’s worth, Jim addresses the substance of your sarcastically intoned declarlaton in the marginal link on his blog entitled “avoiding redundancy.” The “If life is so bad, why don’t you just kill yourself” retort also meets a considered response in the “Faux Q&A” section of Jim’s book, “Confessions of an Antinatalist” (which is currently at press).
BTW, I really loved your pop-Econ book. Given your Austrian leanings, it might interest you to know that I initially came to antinatalism through a critical reading of Murray Rothbard’s discussion of children’s rights in “The Ethics of Librety.”
March 31, 2010 at 2:07 pm
Chip, I realized Rothbard had no idea what ethics was when I read his discussion of children’s rights in _The Ethics of Liberty_!
March 31, 2010 at 2:33 pm
Oh, and Chip, thanks for your kind words on my book, and I wasn’t being sarcastic — the world would be best off if someone with such views recants, but the second best solution is if they go away and stop infecting susceptible minds with invidious nonsense. And I’m really not interested in Jim’s “considered responses” — when someone tells me, e.g., his hat is full of aliens, I’m sorry , but I’m not going to spend any time on exploring his reasons for thinking so.
March 31, 2010 at 4:09 pm
Gene,
“Recant” is a funny word. Always reminds me of some medieval religious dispute over some forgotten heresy. Don’t want to read too much into these things.
Anyway, I thought your bus analogy really nailed the business cycle, by the way. Of course, I think Jim’s book is abrim with similarly instructive analogies and thought experiments. I suppose I have one of those susceptible minds. If only there were a way to tell the genuinely insightful ideas from the claptrap, I might sleep better.
Seriously, though. Others will disagree, but I consider myself pretty good at sniffing out nonsense (invidious and otherwise), and I just don’t think philanthropic antinatalism qualifies. Of course, you’re entitled to dismiss the idea with the absurdist analogy of your choosing (aliens in a hat is a new one to me), but I will point out that the ethical terrain that Jim explores comes with a respectable intellectual pedigree that traces to Sophocles, that is articulated in the works of Schopenhauer, and that finds more formal expression in the writings of David Benatar (philosopher) and Seanna Shiffrin (legal theorist), among others. What’s more, even if antinatalism does not survive philosophical scrutiny (though so far, it’s doing just fine), the idea itself owes to a central concern with the problem of reducing suffering, which it shares with most ethical reasoning. I don’t see the invidiousness of this, any more than I see the wisdom of dismissing an unusual idea without due consideration.
March 31, 2010 at 9:13 pm
How is Crawford causing lots of suffering to the rest of us?
Chip goes from Rothbard to antinatalism here.
Though as you can tell, I’m not an antinatalist, dismissing the idea outright as like claiming one’s hat is full of aliens doesn’t seem a good method of reaching sound conclusions (an antinatalist might similarly dismiss anti-antinatalism, we need reasons to distinguish the positions). There are actual arguments behind it rooted in some fairly common intuitions, which is why I went to the bother of writing refutations.
April 4, 2010 at 9:37 pm
thank you for calling out antinatalism. and tell Mr. Callahan that I too want Jim to either kill himself or shut the hell up. Shit or get off the pot, antinatalists!
love,
Sister Wolf
April 7, 2010 at 11:02 pm
Does your entreaty to shut up or self-destruct apply to antinatalists who find value in continuing their own lives, or is it Jim’s schtick that rubs you wrong?
I should point out that there is a Big Difference between expunging life once it is created, and creating life anew. Once born, people are caught up in the mix; we have interests and preferences and fears — often including the fear of death. We also cultivate concern for others, who could be affected by our actions. I don’t think it is paradoxical that the constellation of concerns and preferences that make up a life could lead someone to question the wisdom of bringing new life into existence. If I fear death and abhor suffering, I can at least try not to perpetuate that which I am disposed to hate. And shout it from the rooftops, if I think it will help.
April 18, 2010 at 10:48 pm
Chip,
Jim’s schtick is offensive to me, yep. But again, if life is awful and not worth living, he should have the courage to end his asap.
Otherwise, and I’ve said this before, he’s just complaining, “The food here is terrible but can I have another serving?”
April 19, 2010 at 1:11 am
” If I fear death and abhor suffering,”
And thus you are anti-life, since life entails death and suffering. Life without those components would not really be life at all, but instead the condition of some heroin addict zonked out contemplating his buzz.
April 7, 2010 at 9:09 am
Antinatalism is, at its core, an emotional reaction to the world wrapped up in philosophical trappings. Rationalization, not rationality.
That is not a criticism, you could accurately describe most philosophy and almost all religion / belief systems the same way. Including, of course, the default of natalism.
The question is, does the antinatalism philosophy lead its adherents to happier, more well adjusted lives? I suspect not, but am willing to consider otherwise. . .
April 7, 2010 at 10:00 pm
As an emotivist, I’m not in a position to disagree (though it is interesting that antinatalism is more often characterized as hyper-rational).
Speaking for myself, I don’t think antinatalism affects my overall well-being one way or another. It’s just a view that makes sense to me as a logical extension of norms that are widely accepted in other contexts. I enjoy life most of the time, and I laugh more than the average bear. I just think creating life is morally problematic and that the justifications that people typically offer for breeding are selfish, inconsistent, and poorly reasoned.
Obviously, I think a better question is whether “adherents” of antinatalist philosophy create less or more unhappiness as a consequence of their views. To the extent that antinatalists refrain from creating life, the answer is obvious to me. The rest is so much handwringing.
April 8, 2010 at 11:34 am
Matthew,
I see antinatalism as the logical extension of normative human sensibilities related to empathy. So I certainly agree with you that there are emotional motivators at its base. But is it merely rationalization? If I tell my daughter to lock her door at night to prevent someone wandering in and doing her harm, or stealing her stuff, is my advice aimed at prevention simply rationalization, or is it a rational suggestion offered to serve her own interests?
Does antinatalism lead to happier, more ‘well adjusted’ lives? I’d say it certainly can, for people who fully realize the stakes involved in procreation. But that’s not really the important question, which should probably run along the lines of ‘does antinatalism axiomatically prevent the suffering and death of each new life which is never conceived?’ I don’t really care how the philosophy happens to affect my mood.
April 18, 2010 at 10:52 pm
I love Matthew Cromer.
April 18, 2010 at 11:52 pm
[…] the argument about antinatalism is still going strong, so if you missed it, check up on it here and here. I think the proponents of this belief system are not only wrong but tragically unglued. They […]
April 19, 2010 at 11:40 am
Gene,
By your reasoning, pretty much the entire transhumanist crowd would have to be considered “anti-life,” which is just absurd. And what of people who unreservedly LOVE death and suffering? Rabid pro-lifers, I suppose.
Obviously, philanthropic antinatalism does not contemplate the abolition of suffering and death for people who already have lives and concommitant interests; it merely proposes a constraint against the imposition of needless and uninvited harm. No one suffers for not being created, but once a life is off and running, suffering is inevitable, unpredictable, and in no way trivial.
April 19, 2010 at 11:57 pm
When you use titles like “Against Life, Against Death”, you can’t really blame people for leaping to the conclusion that you’re anti-life.
April 19, 2010 at 2:17 pm
‘By your reasoning, pretty much the entire transhumanist crowd would have to be considered “anti-life,” which is just absurd.’
No, Chip, I’d say “spot on” — to place one’s hopes and dreams in a sci-fi fantasy world instead of the real one is profoundly anti-life.
“And what of people who unreservedly LOVE death and suffering? Rabid pro-lifers, I suppose.”
I do not think you could really be so dull as to suspect this is implied by my position, as if saying something ought to be *accepted* as *part* of life is the same thing as saying it ought to be *embraced* as the *whole* of life.
“No one suffers for not being created, but once a life is off and running, suffering is inevitable, unpredictable, and in no way trivial.”
Right — anti-natalists have decided “life is not worth it.” I urge them to embrace their principles and get out.
April 19, 2010 at 3:19 pm
This rhetoric is just silly, Gene. You may believe that transhumanistic ideas are somehow “profoundly anti-life,” but your view goes against the common understanding. Usually, people are not against the very thing they seek to preserve.
Again, you assert that “‘anti-natalists’ have decided ‘life is not worth it.'” This claim misrepresents the substance of the antinatalist argument. It would be more accurate to say that antinatalists have decided that “CREATING life is not worth it” — as in: not worth causing a person who has no say in the matter to assume the risks that YOU (or I) happen to find worthwhile.
It’s not nice to gamble with other people’s money. So why be so cavalier when it comes to gambling with the very life of another person who stands to be seriously harmed by your actions?
April 20, 2010 at 12:00 am
I’m surprised you didn’t say “gnostic”. But I guess that’s just for conservatives rather than libertarians.
April 20, 2010 at 8:15 am
Good point. It fits.
April 19, 2010 at 5:20 pm
” You may believe that transhumanistic ideas are somehow “profoundly anti-life,” but your view goes against the common understanding. Usually, people are not against the very thing they seek to preserve.”
Usually, people do not THINK they are against the very thing they seek to preserve. And “preserve” is a very good word choice — transhumanists seek to “preserve” life in the same way the dodo is preserved in the Oxford U natural history museum.
BUt it’s impossible to argue with a cult member until they are ready to leave the cult, so, take care.
April 19, 2010 at 6:06 pm
“transhumanists seek to “preserve” life in the same way the dodo is preserved in the Oxford U natural history museum.”
Such baloney! Transhumanists seek to maximize the good and minimize the bad to the best of humanities’ abilities. Your dodo analogy is misrepresentation at its finest, Gene. My disagreements with the transhumanists have to do with the fanciful aspects of their quest, as well as with the idea that its acceptable to breed generations of biological construction fodder on their way to their imagined Nirvana.
As far as this idea that suffering is somehow intrinsically valuable beyond the somewhat dubious pedagogical claims, I’d just ask how much you or anybody else here actually cultivates suffering in your personal lives vs. how much you try to avoid it whenever you can, and as much as you can. Nobody truly invites real suffering into the house; and, once there, everybody’s anxious that it be on its way as quickly as possible. Who cultivates pain on any serious level, besides those deemed pathological? We all go out of our way to avoid pain for the most part. And when pain is seen as a necessity, we do our best to lessen or otherwise mitigate it.
Face it…suffering is to be accepted as ‘a part of life’ ONLY because we can do nothing else about it. Same with death. Nearly everyone feels this way, which is why religious afterlives of various sorts all promise an end to suffering and death.
“BUt it’s impossible to argue with a cult member until they are ready to leave the cult, so, take care.”
Let us know when you actually have a substantive argument to offer up, rather than this ‘nah, nah, go kill yourself’ crap you and Ms. Wolf have been spouting thus far.
Sister Wolf:
“Otherwise, and I’ve said this before, he’s just complaining, “The food here is terrible but can I have another serving?”
Of course, this was your original assertion from some time ago, and dealt with thoroughly. Unfortunately, your thinking here doesn’t really seem to go beyond ‘shit or get off the pot’ metaphors, no matter how substantively you’ve been answered. I see you’re revisiting the subject now on your blog, but for the life of me I can’t see why, since you’re not actually interested in following the arguments. If I were of a notion to get catty and start dissing clothing fashions I’m now too old to wear, I’d probably start by education myself regarding such things, rather than simply repeating the mantra “Ooh, that’s so ugly! Why don’t you go kill yourself?” Then again, that’s me:)
November 30, 2010 at 8:53 pm
Jim,
Just as some of us have suspected, you are mentally ill and beyond help. To taunt me via comments at my blog about the death of my oldest son, you must truly be off your rocker. I am sorry for you and anyone who may be subjected to your lack of humanity.
November 30, 2010 at 10:58 pm
Sister Wolf: I sincerely hope this is only a misunderstanding on your part, and not something more sinister (or ‘mentally ill’). I haven’t commented on your blog since you did the antinatalist post, which was at least a year ago if memory serves. Is this just an attempt to cultivate some drama? If so, please leave me out of it. I’m sorry for your loss, and I wouldn’t ever dream of ‘taunting’ you about it. Get your facts straight before making accusations, sister.
November 30, 2010 at 11:08 pm
Would you like me to send you a screenshot of the email, which includes your blog’s url and the IP address?
November 30, 2010 at 11:24 pm
Sister Wolf: If you’d like. I just replied on your blog, so I suppose you could compare the two. I suppose that kind of thing could be faked, as well, though I wouldn’t know how to go about it (being somewhat computer illiterate). To be honest, I don’t even know what my own IP is.
Question: Hasn’t Hitler’s mom been around for quite awhile? Seems I remember seeing that moniker back in the days of that antinatalism thread you wrote. Just curious. I’m not really interested in this sort of drama, although it would’ve been nice if you’d asked.
December 1, 2010 at 12:20 am
Just to finish this up for anyone interested, neither the IP number (I checked) nor the email Sister Wolf sent along matched mine; which she probably could have checked before attacking me. Somebody simply hyperlinked to my blog; and the rest, as they say, is history. Or perhaps, histrionics? Real class there, sister. Thanks a lot.
December 1, 2010 at 12:43 am
I believed it was you because it was your URl and you used the same words I once used to you, although not in conjunction with a dead child.
Your continued insults suggest that you know how to use a proxy server. A normal person would offer compassion, not smug insults.
Stay away from me, pal.
December 1, 2010 at 1:04 am
Sister Wolf: Your loss doesn’t entitle you to wantonly slander people uncontested. The bevy of sycophants who attend you on your blog may let your type of behavior slide, but I won’t.
Oh, and I never approached you. YOU attacked ME, and unjustifiably so. Also, your statement that my perceived ‘insults’ somehow suggest my computer expertise is better than I say it is is beyond irrational. It’s moronic. Stick with shoes.
December 1, 2010 at 1:27 am
What I meant was, your continued insults suggest a hostility that would lead you to use a proxy server. The hostility is not consistent with innocence in this matter.
Trying to demean me with crap about shoes is just sad. I write about many topics, whereas you, sir, are a one-trick pony.
To quote NWA, get offa my tip. Or sue me for slander.
Thanks.
May 10, 2024 at 5:06 pm
[…] way to suicidal. He writes that he agreed with his younger brother that life was awful enough that no more of it should be created, and expected to regret his decision not to follow his brother to a self-made grave. Even after […]