>creating a sentient being is always harmful for the sentient being >not creating a sentient being does nothing for the sentient being because it never exists so it can't be harmed, because it never existed
>>25358021>top result: violation of consent, introduction to harm>bottom result: nothingwhich one is less moral?
>>25358367>less moralDepressed fags waxing philosophical instead of killing themselves
>>25358367>>25358021FagsWhat a stupid anachronistic thread. By now most everyone desires an elimination of other human beings. The moderates want to cull 90% globally, the gentlemen of taste and distinction prefer to outright kill everybody. wake up fegit this aint 2005
>>25358021No such thing as harm or suffering exists; we are just chemicals. The things we call harm or suffering are therefore nothing more than changes. Imagine that you see the leaves of a tree moving in the wind. Is that morally good? Of course, there is nothing about morality to discuss here. If we are being truly serious, morality is merely a set of imposed restrictions on one's intellect that limits the number of choices one can make among many available options.In the same way, morality does not even exist. As animals, it is our necessary role to ensure the continuation of our species, and in order to do that, we have to give birth to children.
>>25358380Eh no not really i don't desire pain for anyone, so speak for yourself.
>>25358411Kys fagg
>>25358021I would've actually gotten down with anti-natalism if their logic wasn't flawed and stupid.I mean just look at this>>25358367The midwit denies harm to something that doesn't exist but forgets to do thae same for the concept of consent.
>>25358388>As animals, it is our necessary role to ensure the continuation of our speciesThere is no such role. Your critique of morality applies here. We only have children because we are hard wired to fuck and that happens to lead to children.
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder
>>25358585This doesn't mean that anti-natalist arguments can be dismissed solely due to this fact (inb4 crying about ad hom); it does however add context to why autists make these threads and are completely unable to understand why they are wrong. It also has direct implications regarding Benatar's quality of life argument (i.e. anti-natalists are stuck in a rigid ideological system as a cope for to sustain their defective worldview).Say you're designing a logo and you want to market test for the most appealing shade of red. Would you want most of those in your sample population to suffer from protanopia?
>>25358585Anti-natalists are at a complete poverty when it comes to weighing quality of life. Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrination. They don't necessarily mean to be disingenuous because such is simply written into their nature.Also note that the more you talk to them the more you'll realize a sick fascination with harm, violence, and death. These people don't want to reduce harm, they want to justify their resentment and spread their misery.
>>25358589the anti-natalist cope is that their basis for right and wrong is just "I don't like it: bad" which can easily be countered with "I enjoy living more then not living despite the suffering that comes with it" therefore it is completely moral to share this joy with my future children
I just don't want anons to breed.
>>25358447Does it not feel like a loophole to say there is no concept of consent when it will still be violated in the future? I think it would be much more honest to say that ethics go out of the window when making children because you want to have them.
>>25358608reminder that OP is a fed and these posts are an op to demoralise English speakers
>>25358602>"I enjoy living more then not living"They can never admit this. >share this joy with my future childrenBased. Good luck in all of your future endeavors.
Their argument:>antinatalists central claim is that life is harm>they argue that you have to be alive to feel pleasure and stress this isn't guaranteed>they argue that if you're not alive you are guaranteed not to suffer/harm>[no guarentee of pleasure, risk of suffering/harm, therefore nonexistence is best = basic thread of argument]>note: they also like to being up that the fact you don't have a choice in coming into existence>they conclude that not reproducing and ending life is the optimal outcome to reduce harmWhy they're refuted:>antinatalists can't validate their central claim as they cannot weigh the total value of life in aggregate (the best they can do is assert individual bad things happen)>[this is all the refutation that is needed: they cannot draw logic, let alone an extreme conclusion, from a central claim they are unable to prove; simple as--but lets go on to point out their bad logic]>they place the weight of guaranteed outcomes on detractors but they don't have prescience to forsee the outcome/value of individual lives (let alone the aggregate of all life which they are assuming) but...>antinatalists are attempting to prove their conclusion and thereby the onus is on them produce a stable logic based on a proven premise>however, any single example of value in life automatically contravienes their premise and contradicts the logic they attempt to assert>[antinatalists are generally filtered by this because they still affirm their premise even though reason has been given to reject it]>we may come to the idea of suicide and ending life (which is logically coherent with their outlook while showing their values are actually incosistent)>suicide automatically means an end to suffering, any harm caused doesn't exist for the victim (aside, the absence of existence means you can't even weigh such anyway)>denial of suicide is an affirmation that value exists in life (or else why not? note that they won't even admit that suffering is short relative to continued existence, they really want to avoid clearly weighing anything)>if the antinatalist says it affects others a consistent logic follows that they kill them as well (the sooner the better in fact--stop them from reproducing which puts an end to countless future lives)>alas, the anti-natalist will assert their original logic no longer applies once they are alive (again, affirming the value of existing and demonstrating their logic can actually be harmful)>the last bastion is they HAD no choice to exist (conveniently it doesn't matter that they have one now) but again there are plenty of examples of lives worth living
>>25358675Not reading
>>25358675Why antinatalists are retarded:>no matter how many times you point out how AND why their premise is ungrounded they will still assert you must argue within the logic it sets out>no matter how many times you point out their logic is inconsistent they will retreat to the idea of their (provenly fallacious and always unfounded) premise and assert it follows naturally>no matter the absurdities you can show as consistent with their reasoning (i.e. you shouldn't kill yourself let alone others) they will simply change the rules>life is valuable once it exists and yet we need to stop it from existing...that's what their bullshit boils down to and it's utterly stupidAt this point it's worthwhile to point out antinatalists will ignore strong arguments against their case and use any excuse to stay within their own logic. This is because they're ideologically possessed retards too dumb to see how pretentious "I've figured out the totality of existence and have an announcement to make...all life should cease" is in the first place.Get a life, losers.
>>25358367Anti natalists are anti nature and anti human. It's like being against the laws of the universe. Joke of an "ideology".
>>25358676>Still seethingFTFY. Have fun being miserable and cursing the fact you exist! :)
>>25358677>>25358675If you pay me $40 in crypto I will read this from start to finish and even give feedback
>>25358661>when it will still be violated in the futurePost hoc violation of consent does not exist. If you think it does then you must also admit that you are engaging in an unethical activity by not having children, keeping in mind the post hoc pleasures of life which the non-existent child would be held back from if he was not brought into existence. You would be doing an active harm by not having children right now by depriving the non-existent from potential pleasures. Which is absurd. But so is the idea that potential violation of consent can be applied to non-existent things.
>>25358683If you stop being a fag people will make fun of you less. Well, maybe. You'll still be a loser and embarrassment to your ancestors so...
>>25358678I guess it is a joke of a universe when it leaves planets barren without nature and humans then too.
antinats are btfo by the existence of fun and joyno whimsy no life they must have
>>25358690Not sure what you're referring to, but my offer still stands if you want your bs read
>Benatar/interviewer go for a walk in the park>surrounded by lovers and families enjoying a nice sunny day>interviewer forwards the idea that life can be improved>Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that life never improves (objectively false by the way)>Benatar literally starts crying: "life is unacceptable">interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)Benatar is a mentally unstable weasel so it's no wonder he mostly avoids interviews. On top of that he admits that his ideas are damaging while using the excuse that his work is academic and only meant for those that seek it out (note that these people are likely to have personality disorders and mental illness). Benatar objectively creates suffering and given that he's under the delusion that his work is toward the opposite: he's delusional and irrational.This is the figurehead of anti-natalism. A sniffling sad sack who can't even hold it together in a park on a sunny summer afternoon and finish an interview without having a nervous breakdown. Remember this the next time this loser makes another one of his "I CAN'T BREED" threads as if it's anyone else's problem but his own. Remember this the next time one of these losers starts sperging delusions about how he really cares about suffering when the reality is anti-natalists are just depressive headcases attempting to intellectualize their pathetic nature while mentally masturbating about their delusions all because absolutely no one wants to fuck them.
>>25358694>Not sure what you're referring toThat's because you're a dumb fag.
>>25358693See >>25358695
>>25358698Not sure why you're seething so hard pseud, I'm offering to read your misguided "essays" for a price
r/childfree raiding again?
>Refutes you.
>>25358693>>25358701They're BTFO by the fact their whole schtick is about how much they hate the fact they exist. They're inherently pathetic. >>25358702>Y-YOU'RE SEETHINGThe faggot proclaims because he's been triggered by a pasta, lol. I don't care what you do or don't do, anon. You're a loser.
Are thridies to stupid for the arguments of anti natialism? People who would probably benefit the most from this "ideology" ? How do they contend with this
>>25358711>look at me losers! I love life so much I go argue about loving life on 4chan!
>>25358744This but unironically.
>>25358693They're also disproven automatically by fatties like me.Are you seriously telling me it's better to not exist? How would you be able to enjoy Cold Stone Creamery if you aren't alive?
>>25358693name one joyful/fun moment you had this month. then compare with the moments you hated
>>25358895Every day has been funSummer is litWork is quiet and everyone is enjoying themselvesThe hornets suck though
