Okay, but is he wrong though?
>>23615289Yes, why are we posting this thread again? Benetar's asymmetry arguments are flawed for a number of reasons.
>>23615289>Asymmetry argumentIs a tautology that can be rejected and/or interpreted differently. Anti-natalists aren't very bright so they're completely filtered by this fact and will assert its validity while attempting to monopolize its interpretation. This is the core of their ideological belief structure and they are unable to be anything other than disingenuous when responding to criticism directed toward it.>Quality of life argumentIs the real justification for anti-natalism. Whenever you point out it's subjective and unquantifiable anti-natalists will just deflect back to the asymmetry tautology while pretending it isn't central to their argument (yet whenever they bring up their anti-natalist bullshit they always sperg on and on about quality of life). Even Benatard himself admits it's only "vaguely true.">SuicideDeep down anti-natalists don't actually believe their own bullshit and make excuses so as to avoid the logical conclusion of their worldview. What's more when they reduce their argument back to a tautological stance, as retarded ideologues are wont to do, they betray the fact it coheres with morally atrocious outcomes (like mass murder and suicide).>Anti-natalistsAre ideologically possessed sad sacks who project their negative ideation out onto the world. They don't actually care about the reduction of harm and are simply obsessed by violence and misery. They are prone to mental illness and personality disorder and let their resentment guide their experience of the world.Anti-natalists are annoying morons and the only thing they have right is that they themselves shouldn't breed (note: most of them only come to this conclusion because they know they'll never find a willing partner that will put up with their bullshit).
>>23615289No/thread
Well I'm an antinatalist and I don't really buy his arguments. His asymmetry argument is a convoluted illogical mess. I still do not understand why he isn't counterfactually representing a potential persons desire for benefits, whereas he represents their desire to avoid harms. It straight up makes no sense. He says it's the best explanation for other asymmetries he posits as "widely held" but gives zero evidence for this empirical claim. And if they are widely held, their reasons for being so are empirical - you'd need to go ask people why they hold these beliefs. There's actually a large body of literature criticizing the asymmetry argument at this point. His quality of life argument is bad as well. Now personally this is where MY antinatalism stems from. But benatars treatment is very shallow. He approaches it in utilitarian terms and then tries (unconvincingly) to show that people have a sense of deluded happiness about the quality of their lives. But to me that is largely irrelevant. I'm antinstalist because the structure of human embodiment is fundamentally negative (bodily needs, deprivations, sickness aging death etc). We need perpetual resources or we fall into grave misery, amd we strive for these resources (food water shelter health hygiene etc) as our body slowly breaks down and dies. That's if some contingent harm (eg accident disease) doesn't get you first. Also I am pro-life whereas benatar literally spends a chapter arguing that women have a moral duty to terminate (I.e. kill their babies) up to very late term in their pregnancies.Also he holds that death ITSELF is a harm, whereas I am more epicurean towards death. And yes this implies I should an hero and I agree that I should and it makes me a hypocrite to still be alive, but suicide scares me and I'm not suffering so acutely to resort to self murder. But benatar skirts the issue by saying death itself is a harm and we should avoid it.And also I find him to be a massive pussy. Firstly he's a slimy jew, and is too pussy to have his picture or face be known. He refuses personal questions and isn't like Chad inmendham who's just like yeah we should fucking nuke the entire planet. Benayars all like no what about the harm and the consent !!!! Shut up pussy. Plus he wrote some fucked up paper that really skirted on advocating for being a fucking nonce. I'm not joking. It really was semi pushing the idea we should be more casual about s3x with ch***ren. It's on sci-up if you want your jaw to hit the floor.
>>23615627>Is a tautology that can be rejected and/or interpreted differently. Anti-natalists aren't very bright so they're completely filtered by this fact and will assert its validity while attempting to monopolize its interpretation. This is the core of their ideological belief structure and they are unable to be anything other than disingenuous when responding to criticism directed toward it.>tautology tautology tautologyLmao this is what breeders call critique
breeders are just upset that they can't think deep thoughts after they breed unless they're assholes and abandon their children or something
>>23615289does anyone know what kind of genetic information could be lost if one doesn't breed? Does he ever address that?
>>23616015>tautologyIt is though. Sorry no one wants to fuck you but it's probably your own fault.
Yes he is wrong. No I've never read this book.
>>23615289yes, wrong
>>23615289No, there is no moral weight that you can apply to "suffering", you can apply a moral weight to damages, but suffering is just an illusion of your mind, same as color. Eventually after 1010101010 years you will appear again with all your memories, in fact all possible states of you will appear again. You are immortal
>>2361824110 uparrow 10 uparrow 10 uparrow 10 uparrow 10
>>23618241Go back to sleep, Nietzsche
>>23618086it's so over
if you have a completely materialistic view of the universe, this book is impossible to refute. So in a way if proves you need God and a afterlife to make life in any meaningful.
>>23619036This has been refuted by atheists actually.
I just went to r/anitnatalism. This was the first post. Antinatalists like to pretend they're deep thinking philosopher types. In reality they are all angsty teens filled with hatred and violence towards humanity. It's not worth engaging with. Antinatalists do not need to be argued with - they just need to grow up.
>>23615289Yes because the author is still alive.
The correct conclusion to draw from negative utilitarianism isn't antinatalisn, but suffering abolitionisnm as advocated by David Pearce. Within our lifetimes we very well might well have the neurotechnological tools to re-engineer the human brain to function without the subjective experience of suffering.https://www.hedweb.com/
>>23619611i don't remember well but in The Human Predicament, Benatar responds to this by saying that even if this feat were done, at best it would only result in a placebo for life. In addition, it would take too long for it to be achieved, in which many would suffer. something like that
>>23619611Lol this fucking guy is such an autist, and a terminal coper. "Paradise is just round the corner guys! Any day now!! The techno plug-in heaven is only a few years away!! Just gotta keep humanity going!!!! It's so close!!! We will never suffer again omg it's so close!!! Any day.. Any day now..."In reality that will never be achieved. Look at current psychiatry. They can barely treat depression better than placebo. But somehow the techno future will eradicate suffering entirely? And this will be benevolent? For all humans? Or just the ultra wealthy with means to access such technology? And even if this supposed tech-heaven is 200 years from now, why should we breed the intervening generations to achieve this? Those lives of future bliss that would otherwise not be, if we didn't use a couple generations (of suffering people) instrumentaly to achieve the happiness of the tech-heaven future, would know they're missing out! Not being born isn't a bad thing for anyone. I'm not having kids so that their great grandkids can live in some dystopian Elon musk state where we all plug into the matrix and feel "bliss" while our bodies energies are harvested for our tech-bro overlords.And just in ad-hominen terms, you ever heard or seen an interview with this guy? He's a weirdo autist. And he's ugly and has a vile bri'ish accent. That alone disqualifies anyone from listening to his fag cope optimism about a blissfull future that will never eventuate.
>>23619451>I found a stupid person who happens to believe this idea>therefore checkmateworthless retard
>>23619451Lol. Post more. >>23620701Anti-natalists are defective rejects who project their mental illness out into the world in an attempt to justify their impotent resentment.
