So are there actually any logical arguments against antinatalism or is it all just cope?
>>18021137Yes. Anti-natalism proposes a benefit to a non-existent benefitor - a child not born and it does that if and only if you stick to a uni-dimensional sentiment-based analysis: amount of suffering.Said simply, it's a poor analysis yielding a nonsensical recommendation.
>>18021137>I CAN'T BREED REEEEEEEE
>>18021155>amount of suffering.If you were to be born, and you had to choose: 50% chance of being born in a normal healthy family and 50% chance of being brutally raped and tortured as a child. Would you choose to be born?Obviously the answer is no, thus proving anti-natalists right: The amount of suffering is much more significant than any other factor.
>>18021137
>>18021176People chose all kinds of tortures. The answer is only "obvious" if you stick to a vague uni-dimensional analysis and exaggerate a fringe case in that space. Which is the very objection.If you want to debunk my objection, please justify anti-natalism in any other way than the one I described. You most likely won't be able to do that and you will at best get to "being born is a gamble". Which is fair, but doesn't warrant an anti- stance.
>>18021185>People chose all kinds of torturesExaggerated fringe stance.
>>18021206Fair, then let's arrive to anti-natalism without references to fringe cases. Can you do that?Captcha:JSAAR
The best argument focuses on questioning whether comparing existence and nonexistence is even a coherent move.
>>18021163>>18021180Not arguments try again
>>18021137Its a non dialectical viewpoint which means it has to be false as dialectics are true
>>18021206>dude I'm so smart and enlightened!>gets btfoextended pause>"bump">"bump">meme post to earlier meme repliesgo fuck yourself deepshill retard
>>18021137If your whole idea of life is 'maximizing happiness' then it is a non-starter argument. Happiness is such a nebulous subjective term that it is functionally meaningless logically speaking. It's entirely possible that having children will ultimately increase happiness significantly with the growth of life in the world as the world-spirit develops itself into ever-higher forms. No one knows what humanity truly capable of. It is an honor to be a part of it by having kids, and antinatalists are terribly selfish and life-denialists at heart.
>>18021873Mindless breeder
>>18022534not an argumentyou lost when that other anon fucking destroyed you in consecutive postsyou're a spammer shill
>>18022624I'm not that anon and I win if you continue to think I am
>>18022641>tee hee BUMP! yes I'm shitposting and you won't do shit!I especially won't come away thinking antinatalism has value
>>18022644I guarantee the things you do give value are laughable
>>18022654bumping this gem!
>>18021137As if marxism,feminism and immigration is not enough. Now we have antinatalists in Europe trying to completely eraze us. There is no need for arguments in war.
>>18021218>Gambling on behalf of an innocent's wellbeing is ethical>Just don't bring up what happens when I lose the gambleYou must be joking. >>18021155You have literally no idea what you're talking about. Human consciousness and civilisation is based on doing things out of consideration for presently non-existent people; ie, the people who only in the abstract concept of "the future", regardless of whether they currently exist in the present. Your assertion that the objection of "the amount of suffering" is ubiquitous with antinatalism is also ignorant. Utilitarianism is only one of infinite frameworks that can be used to arrive at the conclusion that "it is wrong to reproduce". Right-based ethics is another. Creating a sentient life is not ethically consistent with the concept of consent; I have no right to subject a creature to an experience when the passive alternative inherently involves no risk for the creature. The fact that the situation cannot be created WITH consent is not an argument, but a restating of the fact that it is ethically inconsistent with the concept of consent.
>>18022802what's the point in typing all that gibberish? And no picture. You suck.
>>18022809How can you be so arrogant that AN is foolish if you don't think about the details? Just write in your diary how upset it makes you feel, leave the adults to discuss it.
>>18022819uhh because you're a spammer and spammers are always wrong. The only question if if the person behind your spam wanted me to figure it out or not, in other words is it reverse psychology.
>>18022802Unclutch your pearls, Anon. Every single decision ever is a gamble on behalf of the innocent, nobody lives in a vacuum. Again you're defaulting to "but there could be suffering" - a uni-dimensional analysis. Anti-natalism breaks apart the moment you actually inspect the objection.>Human consciousness and civilisation is based on doing things out of consideration for presently non-existent peopleI wasn't talking about "presently" non-existent people. Anti-natalism proposes a benefit to people who will never be born at all.>Utilitarianism is only one of infinite frameworks that can be used to arrive at the conclusion that "it is wrong to reproduce". I'm not against utilitarianism. I'm against limiting its scope to "but do we risk unpleasant stuff tho?">Creating a sentient life is not ethically consistent with the concept of consent;It does not violate the concept either, seeing that the person comes about only after the moment of creation. Again, you're proving my point by proposing that we ought to respect the consent of a non-existent entity.>when the passive alternative inherently involves no risk for the creatureFor what creature? The non-existent one? You just proved >>18021155 correct - you're proposing to benefit the non-existent.
>>18021155Antinatalism itself is not a logical argument, because "suffering" and "happiness" are both subjective and unquantifiable.
>>18021206>Exaggerated fringe stanceYou can hardly refuse to accept hyperboles when you first presented a 50% chance of getting born in a hyper-abusive situation.
>>18021137You're on the same level as vegans: I don't give anywhere near enough of a fuck about the subjects you purport to care about to deprive myself of their exploitation.Expecting any argument based on what effectively are just your sensibilities to work is basically solipsistic.
>>18021163Ad hominem.
>>18023254wait so you actually can't breed?it's ok. adoption is still an option if you have your shit together and a wife. As far as I know single parents find it harder to adopt, so you really need to work on finding a wife first.
>>18021137Pathological altruism
>>18022831The premise that it is unethical to create a sentient life does not include any ideas about "suffering" or "happiness". Many proponents of it simply use this as their personal justification.
>>18021137Life is generally pretty good if you aren't a colossal whiny faggot
>>18024062Not relevent to AN. Got anything to say about the premise that creating a sentient life is unethical? Maybe you've mistaken the premise for "life is bad and full of suffering". Many antinatalists think life is fantastic and that if a utilitarian framework was applied, good would vasty outweigh bad, but they think it is wrong to CREATE life from a different perspective.
>>18024098Hmm how do I make your antihuman christ killing kike argument for you. Maybe you could say it's a vow of poverty thing, since children are wealth.
>>18024135meds
>>18022823I barely post and have never created a thread; you live in a fantasy rhetoric world
>>18024207Every single spammer says this. Not saying you're one of them but the comment needs to be something else
>>18024204ad hominem
>>18024213Then I'm at a loss. Maybe focus on making on-topic posts instead of parodying pattern recognition
>>18024228You start. So far we've learned a bunch of places the antinatalist argument is not located. It's not in suffering or happiness, it's not in the sugar bowl, it's not under the toilet seat. How many bumps till you give up the goods?
