File: 1731803487505897.jpg (365 KB, 700x999)

365 KB JPG

>ragebait harvest season is on
Im tired of this, I have said this many times already being an "antinatalist" is something you shoulf never proselitise, even not even mention is just something you do and decide and specially something you should commit to when SINGLE, dont drag anyone else who might just agree by peer pressure or love into something that carries severe implications later in life, don't be a fucking cultist your do it in silence and be your own witness

I wish I could filter by image

>>23976623
He's a cultist.
Now stfu about this tiresome thread. We just had one.

>>23976623
>How do you debunk this?
You can be a monstrous and ignorant selfish piece of shit imposing harm and bearing responsibility for every single bit of evil under the sun. As long as you're happy, who cares?

>>23976691
Yes

>>23976691
>imposing harm and bearing responsibility for every single bit of evil under the sun
>she rejects personal autonomy and delegates responsibility to causality
By this logic, I am not autonomous in birthing individuals who will be harmed in the future and thus bear no moral responsibility for their fate

>>23976623
You don't.

>>23976623
you can't pretend you're saving a non-existent person from harm while you deny that non-existent person personhood. benatar has to "pick one." but that doesn't mean other formulations of antinatalism are wrong, just that benatar is wrong

>>23976731
>you can't pretend you're saving a non-existent person from harm while you deny that non-existent person personhood
How does he deny it?

Sometimes I think this board is going too slow. Then I remember the same fucking posts get reposted every dam day.

Yea anon you discovered the anti natalistes, please now move on to Ligotti or Brassiere if you want to pursue or read something else if it upset you. But for the love of Cthulhu stop posting the same shit every time.
If you’re pro birth, birth a new post for once.

there's not really much that needs to be 'duboonked' he has no basis for what constitutes as 'better' or 'worse'

>>23976814
Suffering is bad and lack of suffering is good.

>>23976623
>How do you debunk this?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VgK4J-szQC8

>>23976821
Retard

>>23976818
ok why? the author just asserts this to be true but has no way of showing this to be true

>>23976826
>brick falls on anon's head
anon, retard. pain can't be described in words. it is the only negative, because without pain, nothing makes sense. you wouldn't move, eat or do anything without a pain of some sorts.
it is the only objective on which a metric can be established.
>but muh subjectiviety
it doesn't mean shit, brainlet. the pain is real. it's in reality.

>>23976918
>anon, retard. pain can't be described in words. it is the only negative
ok but why is it negative? you just as the author are just asserting it to be the case
>it doesn't mean shit, brainlet. the pain is real. it's in reality.
you throwing a fit doesn't mean shit either, you have no basis for anything you're claiming

File: The Hedonistic Imperative(...).jpg (10 KB, 279x445)

10 KB JPG

>>23976623
David Pearce debunked it. Genetic engineering could lead to the complete abolition of suffering.

https://www.abolitionist.com/anti-natalism.html

>Benatar's policy prescription is untenable. Radical anti-natalism as a recipe for human extinction will fail because any predisposition to share that bias will be weeded out of the population. Radical anti-natalist ethics is self-defeating: there will always be selection pressure against its practitioners. Complications aside, any predisposition not to have children or to adopt is genetically maladaptive. On a personal level, the decision not to bring more suffering into the world and forgo having children is morally admirable. But voluntary childlessness or adoption is not a global solution to the problem of suffering.

>Yet how should rational moral agents behave if - hypothetically - some variant of Benatar's diagnosis as distinct from policy prescription was correct?

>In an era of biotechnology and unnatural selection, an alternative to anti-natalism is the world-wide adoption of genetically preprogrammed well-being. For there needn't be selection pressure against gradients of lifelong adaptive bliss - i.e. a radical recalibration of the hedonic treadmill. The only way to eradicate the biological substrates of unpleasantness - and thereby prevent the harm of Darwinian existence - is not vainly to champion life's eradication, but instead to ensure that sentient life is inherently blissful. More specifically, the impending reproductive revolution of designer babies is likely to witness intense selection pressure against the harmfulness-promoting adaptations that increased the inclusive fitness of our genes in the ancestral environment of adaptation. If we use biotechnology wisely, then gradients of genetically preprogrammed well-being can make all sentient life subjectively rewarding - indeed wonderful beyond the human imagination. So in common with "positive" utilitarians, the "negative" utilitarian would do better to argue for genetically preprogrammed superhappiness.

>>23976938
Nah, I've got something similar but better. check mine.
>>>/x/39253528

File: circ problems.jpg (101 KB, 720x960)

101 KB JPG

>>23976623
Daily reminder that (((Benatar))), despite supposedly being anti-suffering, is in favor of mutilating baby penises.

https://sci-hub.se/https://doi.org/10.1162/152651603766436216

>>23976648
You're the type, that if socially pressured enough, would look the other way if saw someone getting mugged or raped. waste of brains and oxygen.

>>23976937
you've again failed to provide any justification as to why what you're saying is true.
all you have is "pain is bad because its bad"

sorry but being a retarded nigger and just saying something is bad doesn't make it so.

>its better to not have existed because suffering is bad
>it just IS ok???
brainlet tantrum throwing

>>23976947
Fine, I'll torture you my self. send me your address.

File: 1731275563605.jpg (60 KB, 469x699)

60 KB JPG

>>23976623
It's true insofar as it is contextualized within the value system of a society built around managing risks, in which case it is the only logical conclusion to draw. Falls apart by a lack of this obsessive-compulsive basis otherwise.

>>23976950
and this is why no one takes anti natalists serious

>its better to not have existed because suffering is bad
>it just IS ok???

brainlet nigger tantrum throwing

Let's do some Doom work..

>>23976954
Our concept of "bad" is entirely derived from suffering you absolutely retarded faggot pseud.

>>23976957
can you demonstrate that or are you just asserting things again

>absolutely retarded faggot pseud
promoting antinatalism yet I'm the pseud
oh the irony of you brainlet nigget faggot

>>23976959
Name one "bad" thing that doesn't involve suffering

>muh deboonk
fuck off and go read a real book

>>23976959
Not anon, I can. just send me your address.

>>23976961
burden of proof is on you :^)

BoR

>>23976967
>I couldn't think of any so here's some arbitrary court room rule
I accept your concession

>>23976623
>its better to not have existed because life is suffering
why is suffering bad
>it just IS ok?

yeah I'm wring if you blindly accept my starting axiom without question, definitely midwit core no wonder why so many redditors follow this model

>>23976974
still not proof just assertions.
your concession is accepted first

Its better to have been because life offers opportunities for growth and resilience, as overcoming challenges often brings a deeper sense of purpose and strength.
Even amidst suffering, moments of connection, love, and kindness remind us of the beauty and meaning in relationships. The pursuit of dreams and passions gives life direction, offering fulfillment in the journey, even if obstacles arise along the way. Suffering often deepens our appreciation for joy, teaching us to cherish the simple, everyday moments that we might otherwise take for granted. The human spirit's capacity to find meaning and create beauty in adversity reveals an incredible resilience that makes life profoundly rewarding.

anon, for the sake of science!
send me your address, I can prove that hell is real.

>>23976979
>no u
I proved that you don't even believe what you're saying. Just give me one and make me look like a retard.

File: egoist_anarchist_flag_by_(...).png (19 KB, 1200x800)

19 KB PNG

>>23976623
>How do you debunk this?
I prefer to exist then to not exist, the fact that you're still here means you agree with me

>>23976983
whether or not I believe what I'm saying has nothing to do with whether what I'm saying is true or not. cope

so again if you're going to assert suffering is bad.
or even that our concept of 'bad' is dependent on suffering, you're going to need to show that to be true or out yourself as a braintlet nigger

>>23976984
>I prefer to exist then to not exist, the fact that you're still here means you agree with me
None of that disputes any claim made in the book. You agree with the author.

>>23976984
it's intelligence vs will
will is irrational and just wants, intelligence recognizes the futility. you're a slave of will.
>but so are you
no. I'm here to enlighten you

>>23976988
it does because I prefer to have been therefore it is preferable to have been

>>23976990
>intelligence vs will
neither exist, simply spooks

>>23976992
you don't prefer to have been. right now you're not in too much pain.
you either need to be in too much pain to let go.
or have 170+ IQ to understand the futility of the game. otherwise you delude yourself that this is somehow worth a damn.

>>23976995
If so, then you're a spook. go away bot.

>>23976997
>you don't prefer to have been
yes i do
>you either need to be in too much pain to let go.
I'm not though so this isn't relevant
>or have 170+ IQ to understand the futility of the game. otherwise you delude yourself that this is somehow worth a damn.
not autistic enough sorry

0/3 try again

>epic benatard devotees just threaten people with torture
lol
Anyway both the OP and >>23976717 >>23976731 >>23976938 these are all valid points, but another thing is that eradication of human life will not solve the cosmic problem of suffering as life is a universal phenomenon inherent to entropy and thus inevitable. Humans at this stage of development have a chance to eradicate suffering for themselves but anti-natalism has the potential to relaunch the evolution arc and throw us into another spiral of millenias of suffering.

Also partial adoption of anti-natalism can lead to population collapse and even more suffering, so we're locked in this shit.

>>23976987
Then tap out and give me someone who can actually defend your retarded idea. My argument is that every *bad* thing involves suffering, therefore suffering is *bad*.
So give me one example of a *bad* thing that doesn't involve suffering or admit you had a knee-jerk autistic reaction to seeing this post because an antinatalist raped your mother or something.

>>23976998
sorry I'm not going to accept you're blind assertions

>>23976990
>intelligence recognizes the futility
Futility of what?

>>23977008
>My argument is that every *bad* thing involves suffering, therefore suffering is *bad*.
ok can you show that to be true? you're again just asserting the very thing in question. do you suffer from retardation?
>So give me one example of a *bad* thing that doesn't
give me an epistemic justification for your claims

>>23977001
no you don't, you are not your best judge, I am.

>>23977009
I am not a blind assertion.

>>23977014
cope

>>23977011
of life

>>23977019
Why is life futile?

>>23977021
Because it's negative and nothing else.

>>23977018
pussy. idiot. low IQ. you VILL be educated.

>>23977024
Maybe you're just a loser

>>23977028
cope

>>23977031
you can cope all you want.
>>23977030
maybe you're just:
a bot
low iq
either way, you will learn.

>>23977035
>resorting to shitposting
this is why no one takes you seriously

>>23977043
I'm not sure you take anything seriously to begin with.

>>23977046
definitely not a brainlet nigger that can't justify his positions

>>23977058
Anon, for the millionth time, just send me your GPS coordinates. I can prove what you don't understand.

>>23977060
not a justification faggot

>>23977067
actually it is, and I can prove it. sorry, that's the only way it seems for you. you'll thank me and hate me when you get it.

I am offering a to prove something and you refuse, you are not in your right to say that have nothing to show for.

>>23976623
>Do you just call him a retarded crybaby Platonist who assigns subjective categories to human beings and their experiences before they're even born and strips them of their authority?

Yes

>Or do you ask him why lack of any experience is objectively better than a sum of good and bad experiences?

Only experiences can be good or bad. A lack of experience cannot be categorised as "objectively good" same way the color red cannot be categorised with sweet taste.

>>23976648
Anti natalism is retarded. So obviously it makes for gr8 b8 because deliberately acting like a retard is a time tested ragebait formula. I just don't get OP's endgoal here? Does he laugh in his little basement dungeon, giggling at all the people he managed to troll by making the most brain-dead anti-natalism points?

>>23977072
someone 'not liking something' isn't a justification as to why its universally 'bad'
but a retard such as yourself can't grasp that

>>23977078
you seem to not be able to understand that if a hypothetical universal bad that existed and had nothing to do with out sentiments would not be a universal bad.
if God existed, and told you not to shove things up your ass, provided and it had no consequences what so ever, then God would be a retard and it would not matter what he has to say.
pain is the only objective bad, because nothing else is.
if you can't understand this, then you must be shot (in real life) and then have your matter and mind repurposed for more useful tasks.

>>23977082
>you seem to not be able to understand that if a hypothetical universal bad that existed and had nothing to do with out sentiments would not be a universal bad.
no i never said that you're strawmanning again
you cannot show a hypothetical universal from a person's opinion of that thing.
>pain is the only objective bad, because nothing else is.
ok why is it 'bad'? you can't seem to be able to show that one still.
>if you can't understand this, then you must be shot (in real life) and then have your matter and mind repurposed for more useful tasks.
you cannot show a hypothetical universal from a person's opinion of that thing.

>>23977089
it's not your opinion you idiot. pain is not an opinion, it is an objective experience in reality.

>>23977094
>it's not your opinion you idiot.
are you so much of a retard you can't follow the conversation? we're talking about pain being 'bad' try to keep up
>pain is not an opinion, it is an objective experience in reality.
we're discussing your assertions of pain being 'bad' retard

>>23977099
I already told you I can prove it. you're the one whose refusing to continue.

>>23977103
you've haven't yet so try again

>>23977104
I am trying. I'll find you.

>>23977106
you cannot show a hypothetical universal from a person's opinion of that thing.
being edgy doesn't get you anywhere
retard

>>23977110
You are simply wrong and strawmanning my position. but don't worry, I'll demonstrate why pain is bad when I find you.
and from there I'll try to my best of ability to explain why your retarded homosapien brain can't understand that pain is not an opinion.

>>23977007

Maybe one can come to the simple yet effective realisation that suffering is not a concept that exists in the outside world. That it is entirely defined by the human experience, as a necessity for survival. And hence avoiding suffering can only have true meaning, purpose and moral value in the presence of a human for whom the suffering must be avoided.

Thus to remove the human inorder to remove human suffering is not just misguided but plainly absurd. It's the equivalent of destroying all the apples on the planet inorder to avoid the eventuality of fruit decay/rot

No apple = no apple rot. This is how retarded anti natalism is

>>23977120
>Maybe one can come to the simple yet effective realisation that suffering is not a concept that exists in the outside world.
yes it does, where else does your brain exist but IN reality smartass?

>>23977117
well you haven't made an argument so I guess you've given up

File: 1653740628571.png (129 KB, 800x694)

129 KB PNG

>>23977117
>I'll demonstrate why pain is bad when I find you.

>>23977122

You are a filthy little troll golem and you should kill yourself to make the world a better place. The reason people hate you is not because the world is "le suffering". It's because YOU are an insufferable animal who should've been aborted by an anti natalist mom

>>23977131
I'm sorry, you and 99% of humanity are irrational and must be culled. but I'm a nigger golem if that makes you temporarily feel better.

>pain isn't bad
it's bad because it's pain, not because its badness is some super-added magical property. really sad the pretzels people twist themselves into. thought and abstraction were a mistake

>>23977135

You can fix the mistake your mother did and cut off your wrists at the nearest convenience. Believe me, one less internet troll would lead to creating a better world for our children

>>23977120
this is the buddhist solution to the problem, though. it's a radical solution to a radical problem. it's not retarded, it's just pragmatic, and above the capability of 99.999999% of sentient life

>>23977141
>projecting this hard

A year later and /lit/ is still buckbroken.

>>23977143

Wtf are you talking about?

>>23977140
Pain is an evolutionary tool for tactile interaction and safety. It's not inherently good or bad. If you feel too much physical pain, take some meds. If you feel too much mental "pain", take some meds. You don't need to cease your whole existence to minimize your personal suffering.

>>23977160
no apple = no apple rot.

no becoming = no stress/suffering/craving.

>>23977161
get serious

>>23977165
>get serious
not an argument

>>23977161
NTA. we are not talking about the technicalities.
pain in it self is bad. regardless of whether or not it is useful for survival.

>>23977166
>pain isn't bad because meds
meds

File: images (1) (10).jpg (20 KB, 739x415)

20 KB JPG

>ah being 15 is so hard
>Life is suffering
>I wish I was never born
>No one should have children aaaahhhhh
>Look at all these fucking normies
>Living normal lives
>They don't even know they were harmed by being born
>99.9999% of people are too low IQ to comprehend my genius

>>23977173
Take a better selfie next time, I can hardly see your face.

File: images (1) (11).jpg (26 KB, 580x528)

26 KB JPG

>>23977175

Hit a nerve didn't I

>>23977182
you're just a baby

>>23977182
I guess you did? you don't even know if you feel your own sensations?

>>23977165
>no apple = no apple rot.

>no becoming = no stress/suffering/craving

Same energy as-

>Imagine you are being robbed< how would you feel
>But I am not being robbed
>No IMAGINE if you were walking down the street and someone mugged you
>But I am not walking down the street

File: 1507433178_photo.jpg (73 KB, 900x900)

73 KB JPG

>>23977190
Forgot the pic

>>23977190
i guess

Who is natalie and why do you guys hate her so much?

What's the point of not experiencing suffering if I'm not even alive to experience a life free of it? I mean, I want to live a life without experiencing anything bad, but how is not existing a good alternative to it?

>>23977211

>but how is not existing a good alternative to it?

It isn't. If anti natalist weren't here to troll or just be generally retarded they would understand this simple point

>>23977211
troll anon, you know why. because we just can't experience a life without it. I wish we could.
why do you find it so hard to accept that life maybe bad? I coped and seethed too, but then I realized I was just being silly.

>>23977211
>>23977214

Heh. You see. They are only here to troll and farm replies. Its the same schtick as evolution denial or flat earth shilling.

>>23977213
I'm sure that you're not retarded at all.

>>23976623

Is the point of these threads to get people to start having children in some reverse psychology way? By making anti natalist talk and act like the biggest dimwits on the board and thus making everyone with a brain reject it

>>23977239
What do you get from behaving like this?

>no me posting this ragebait shill thread every second day with down syndrome tier replies to every counter argument isn't abnormal

>You are abnormal

What could one gain from such behaviour hmm

>>23977263
You're just low IQ man
>ad homs
>strawmans
>continue to miss the point
ok, we get the routine. you're retarded.

File: images (1) (12).jpg (37 KB, 480x639)

37 KB JPG

>everyone's so low IQ man
>If everyone was a high iq patrician like me no one would have children man

This thread is so gay, no one is discussing anything and everyone is talking past each other.
and this homosexual troll >>23977290
didn't get beat enough back in high school

Not all life is bad, but most of it is.

> be anti natalist
>be Troll
>Muh why is no one catching my bait so I can make retarded sounds and frustrate them muh

Pathetic

Humans should be more like pandas. Pandas hate breeding in captivity but humans thrive in it.

>>23976623
fuck off

I'm more well read on benatars argument than anyone in this thread. I have read almost all the secondary literature on this topic. My opinion:

David Benatars axiological asymmetry argument is invalid, if not incoherent. He counterfactually represents the one who would be born, but isn't, interests in avoiding harm allowing him to make the comparative value judgment that not being born and avoiding the harms of life is 'better', whereas he does not make the same representation of the one who would be born, but isn't, and whom would experience benefit/pleasure, interest in being benefitted. He just doesn't represent this interest (because if he did he would be obliged to make the same comparison as absent harms, which he values as better, as absent pleasures, which MUST comparatively be worse). Instead he just says absent harms aren't worse, because nobody is deprived. Well straightforwardly the issue here is you aren't treating absent pleasures and harms in the same manner, and thus are generating an asymmetry. And it seems the only reason to do this is??? Because it sustains David's argument?? It's retarded.

Why, if we counterfactually represent the unborns interest in not being harmed, are we not obliged to represent the unborns interest in being benefitted?

Julio Cabrera made a similar argument in his paper where he points out that the axiological asymmetry trades on an equivocation between "better" treated as person affecting, and "better" simpliciter. It's free online on his website.

The rest of the book just devolves. Chapter 3s argument is just a crude utilitarian pessimism. Easily debunked - as if the worth of life were determined by heaping pleasures and pains on a scale and calculating the balance. For one - some pleasures and pains are un/deserved. And then book just gets worse - abortion apologism, state assisted euthanasia, and then he starts talking about putting sterilization drugs in the air or water supply. Then cowardly skims the topic of suicide when its a direct consequence of antinatalist pessimism.

Plus his shifty other papers- circumcision and pedophilia apologism. And go listen to his pro-israel podcasts. He's a total jew.

DEBUNKED.

>>23976957
No it’s not retard. It’s derived from many different things. Partially from suffering, partially from the need to universalize maxims, partially from the pursuit of ends as opposed to the escape from ends. To reduce all morality to this is such a reductive and semantically shoehorned framework. It’s like trying to define all objects in the world as either the affirmation or negation of any one object. It’s simply a shallow, incomplete picture of the multifarious world of human experience.

>>23976961
Dishonesty does not actualize suffering every time it’s employed but it is corrupting to the soul.

>>23977338
If I took all your pain you would value nothing.

>>23976938
>debunking it through some hypothetical 'just rub some science on it' nonsense

what does programmed well-being even mean? that everyone feels like they are peaking on heroin 24/7?

>>23977331
>circumcision and pedophilia apologism.

Bruh

>>23976623

The instinct to reduce suffering and pain is a instinct of human life and suceeded human life not preceeds it. Hence cannot be used to justify ending human life.

>>23976623
I haven’t been on /lit/ much lately but I thought the antinatalism poster(s) left. I see these threads are back after being gone awhile

>>23976623
>How do you debunk this?
I'm glad I exist. There, it's literally deboonked.

>>23976826
>"Why is suffering bad?"
>"Let me come to your house and cause you to suffer."
>"No, that would be bad."
Every. Time.

>>23977782
idk, with as little pain as possible, probably.

>>23977819
I don't believe you are judging your situation fairly.
I have to get in your mind to be sure, you don't mind if I do that do you? for science.

>>23977824
kek'd
continued
>ok see? it's bad.
>them
>but what "bad"?
either children, low IQ, or some type of psychosis.

>>23977830

If anti natalist could get into someone else's mind their entire egotistical self centered childish worldview would fall apart.

>>23977835
>natalist and suffering apologist accusing someone else of childish egoism

>>23976623
I refute it thus

>he is ethnically Jewish

>>23976623
>pain is bad
>pleasure is good
>absence of pain is good
>Absence of pleasure is NOT bad
So, good? What kind of bullshit midwit mental masturbation is that?

>>23977840

If an anti natalism simply cannot fathom that perceiving human life as inherently not worth living is a YOU problem then they do need some growing up to do. Ironically enough anti natalists lack empathy because their brains aren't mature enough to let go of ego. A milestone healthy people achieve when they turn 15.

>Why should I not steal candy. I want candy, I like candy. What do you mean the other kid is hurt by me stealing. I only know what goes on in my head

^ literally an anti natalist

Utilitarian argument: the vast majority of people are glad to be born and to be alive, so birthing is net good
Individualism argument: each man is responsible for his own happiness, so if you end up miserable that's your fault and has no moral bearing on your birth givers
Normal person argument: as long as the parents tried their best they have no moral failing, and your misery is just unlucky, no one did anything wrong

>>23977888
How old are you? You don't sound a day older than 21. 25 if I'm being generous

File: 3ijalofnibhb1.jpg (98 KB, 1290x782)

98 KB JPG

PAIN IS LE GOOD
WAR IS LE GOOD
GORE IS LE GOOD
why are chuds like this?

>>23977925
Because they've never experienced any of these things

PAIN

IS

LE

GOOD

>>23977888
I know its a me thing but I don't see why I should see it as a problem.

It's really simple to refute this faggot
>hand him a gun
>"ok kill yourself"
>he'll stutter and cope about how he should continue to live (so you can buy his books)
Simple as

>>23978043
"Wanting to end desire is also a desire"-tier argument

t. not even an antinatalist

>>23978048
>ask this jewish rat to put his money where his mouth is
>he doesn't do it
Of course

>>23978050
Jews are typically more sapient than whites, for better or for worse. I like Jews. They sold you the rope you're hanging itself with.

Niggers here seem to be triggered by antinatalism because it implies extinction.
but just because life is negative, doesn't mean that it's THAT negative for you. so it doesn't mean that you should kill yourself if you accept it. you can still enjoy your life, so long as it's not too awful.
it just means that you don't create beings that could have never had the choice since they couldn't exist. you just keep that shit to yourself. stop creating frankensteins. you are not God. that's all.

>>23977295
>expecting high quality discussion concerning the most reddit ideology in existence

>>23976623
You don't. But humans have an optimist bias toward life and will be forever searching for the refutation.

>>23976984
>the fact that you're still here means you agree with me
or it means suicide is scary because of the programming of my reptilian brain

>>23978143
>mom, dad. why did you force me into Samsara?
>shut up you retard. that's not how you say thank you you brat!
>go back to your reddit friends

>>23978146
The eternal seething with no resolution

>>23976984
What has Johann Kaspar Schmidt to do with your retarded opinion though?

>>23978148
what you cant get over a little fear? you gonna just do whatever your body tells you your whole life?

>>23978280
>you gonna just do whatever your body tells you your whole life?
yea, like eat, shit, piss, your mom.

normies are so fucking weird man.
they think everything they do is normal
eat sleep shit go to work get married shit out a spawn or two and die
they're so fucking weird.
I'm derailing this thread, I wanna talk about normgoids not natalism/antinatalism

>>23976623
It hinges on the unjustified premise that suffering is evil and ought to be prevented on all cases.

You have too much time on your hands.

>>23978548
Is there an objective goal of life that you'd like to enlighten us with? because if you don't have one then the only other one is pain.
the burden of proof that there is value beyond pain and pleasure is on you.
that's not to say that must absolutely diminish all pain, the issue is that we're not even doing a good job of mitigating it, let alone eliminating it.

>>23978553
Yes, I believe the ultimate goal of life is theosis, union with God, and that He can be proven as the grounding for trascendental categories.

That said, even if God isn't the case I don't see how the case for antinatalism is stronger: You seem to be running with the premise that suffering ought to be avoided unless a sufficient reason is given, which is again something you should prove first. Running with the "people by default avoid pain" is a typical ought-is problem.

Ultimately, while you can argue that in your own experience non-existence is better, your position internally has no groundings to affirm any moral imperative for others to do so.

>>23978562
>Running with the "people by default avoid pain" is a typical ought-is problem.
where do you dimwits come from?
you don't ought-is from pain, you just avoid it.
it is the only anchor that we can be sure if because we can feel it and it guides us.

>>23978562
Not him, but people—most people tend to avoid suffering as much as they can, perhaps even more so today. The rare exceptions, like the saints (if you're Christian), represent a minority who view suffering as trials meant to deepen their faith in God. However, that doesn’t mean suffering is inherently good; they endure it because they trust that God is in control.

>>23978562
>union with God, and that He can be proven as the grounding for trascendental categories.
sounds like a bunch of horseshit.
all there is pleasure or pain, and they might even be metaphysical under idealism.
will is just pleasure and pain. there is no higher value than that.

>>23978573
Dude you are trying to derive a moral imperative from the observation of humans' reaction to pain. What people do in regards to suffering can't give you some kind of moral basis to affirm anti-natalism, same as observing a tree fall product of gravity can't give you the moral imperative that trees ought to be on the ground. Saying

>I-It just is!!!

Has no strength as an argument.

>>23978582
No. pain is universal, not just a human thing.
under idealism pain exists, pain and pleasure are not just human or brain things. it is the ultimate value.
how do I know this? because I look inwards and that's all I can find. if im part of reality then I can find all reality inside of me, same way you can find about atoms anywhere and understand that they constitute everything.
pain and pleasure are more than just sensations, they are metaphysical.

File: 1727851678829150.png (670 KB, 1500x1500)

670 KB PNG

>be worthless white cuck who can't breed
>I-I am an anti-natalist!1 I'm not a seething incel!

>>23978582
uhh, the tree falling doesn't do anything. there is no value in that.
there is a lot of negative value in pain, pain IS negative value. without it, nothing makes sense.

>>23978578
Yeah I get that, but antinatalism ultimately is trying to argue in favor of a moral position (suffering is bad and ought to be avoided) that it can't really justify because, for the most part, antinatalism is materialistic. At best they can comment on their own internal state and perhaps reach the conclusion that they want to avoid suffering as much as possible, but they can't really comment on any kind of universal morality. It's arbitrary. From where the moral ought is coming from?
>>23978580
That's an assertion, anon. It would be great if you can make an argument instead.

>>23978591
it is not an assertion because that's all we have access to you retard. you're the one with the assertion with your gay union with God shit.
(which I have my own version of btw)

>>23978591
Even if life was pure constant pleasure it would still be wrong to create a being in it.
there is no point to any of it.

>>23978584
>if im part of reality then I can find all reality inside of me, same way you can find about atoms anywhere and understand that they constitute everything.

That's quite the assumption. How do you know reality can be found all within you?

>>23978590
>pain IS negative value

What is value within your paradigm? How do you ground and justify that value judgement?

>>23978595
Anon that's an assertion, not an argument. In which standard life is wrong, and why said standard is justified?

>>23978600
>That's quite the assumption. How do you know reality can be found all within you?
Because I can zoom in (through my consciousness) and break it down to just pain and pleasure.
if reality is consciousness, then reality is pain and pleasure (or some negative and positive)

File: GSblRAbWsAA6UnX.jpg (352 KB, 1366x2048)

352 KB JPG

>>23978591
I mean, just seeing how others view suffering as more than just "le bad" kinda disproves the materialist subjective argument, doesn't it? like the saints who have a more metaphysical nuanced view, but if you're a materialist you likely don't believe in God anyway; it all comes down to different teleological outlooks. it remains arbitrary without an external source of moral authority. Where does the moral "ought" to avoid suffering arise? if you're trying a new hobby and fail at the first time (which causes suffering) should you just kill yourself? is that the rule? even though the struggle that comes with success makes it worth it. Without an overarching framework for the materials—such as divine command, natural law, or some other metaphysical grounding—the antinatalist's ethical stance risks being seen as a projection of personal feelings rather than a defensible moral truth.

>>23978602
Because there is no need for any of it.
what's the point of just fullfilling constant needs?
why?
for what?
it is wrong because to not exist is easiest and less burdensum. I would feel wronged no matter what reality I was brought into.
and you should too. I'm very skeptical that any of you have functioning brains if you don't conclude this, because all I hear is nonsense about bullshit like God and the sanctity of life.

>>23978594
>All we have access to
I don't believe so. Laws of logic and math for example are internal experiences that can't be reduced to either pleasure or pain.

Besides, I don't think you understand how the argument works: You are defending here a positive claim (we ought to avoid suffering on all instances, to the point of ending all human life) and I am asking for justification behind that moral judgement. I am not the one with the burden of proof.

>>23978610
the laws of logic and math are just pain and pleasure too. thinking is pain and pleasure.
the only monad, the only platonic truth is pain and pleasure. that is will, from Schopenhauer.

>>23978608
>Because there is no need for any of it
The concept of "need" is modeled by emergent consciousness, it doesn't exist outside of human brain and thus life precedes it and it cannot be extrapolated this way. "Need" needs life and sapience to exist.
>what's the point of just fullfilling constant needs?
The point of fulfilling needs is to support life.
>why?
To live.
>for what?
For living.
>it is wrong because to not exist is easiest and less burdensum
Non-existence cannot operate with the concept of "burden", see the first paragraph of this post.

>>23978608
>Because there is no need for any of it.
>what's the point of just fullfilling constant needs?

Anon you are merely begging the question at this point: How do you know "there's no need for any of it"? How do you measure that? How did you got access to that knowledge?

Even if I grant you that there's no purpose behind suffering it doesn't follow that we ought avoid it. I am not denying your capacity to judge life as not worth it, to make a description of your own internal state, but to make moral claims about it is beyond the capacities of your worldview.

>>23978614
>The concept of "need" is modeled by emergent consciousness, it doesn't exist outside of human brain and thus life precedes it and it cannot be extrapolated this way. "Need" needs life and sapience to exist.
only if you assume materialism
and even then, since value doesn't exist outside of consciousness it is irrelevant, do you care what a random floating rock thinks of you in outer space? no? then why the fuck is anything outside of our sentiments should be valued you donkey?
>The point of fulfilling needs is to support life.
and the point of supporting life?
nothing, there is no point to it, it's just a biochemical phenomena. so therefore there is no point to pain.
nonexistence is not a burden, that's correct.

>>23978548
>the unjustified premise that suffering is evil
kek. why do i have to share the internet with toddlers like you?

>>23978545
they are

>>23978620
retard, this is like asking how do you know that God doesn't exist? the burden of proof is ON YOU you dumb fuck. we can only know that it is negative.

>>23978605
not even monks who self-immolate have eliminated the painfulness of pain, just their aversion to it. the onus is on you to explain why all saints and ascetics are, invariably, world-deniers

>>23978613
I don't experience math and logic as either pain or pleasure. Your view seems dogmatic more than anything. If anything math and logic precede the comprehension of pain and pleasure as necessary tools for thought.

>>23978622
>only if you assume materialism
I assume materialism.
>do you care what a random floating rock thinks of you in outer space? no? then why the fuck is anything outside of our sentiments should be valued you donkey?
Are you brown? Your English is borderline unreadable. Rewrite your post in something more coherent please.
>and the point of supporting life?
There is no "point" outside of life, life is the prerequisite for the very concept of "points", you cannot ponder it beyond it.
>nothing, there is no point to it, it's just a biochemical phenomena. so therefore there is no point to pain.
You don't understand logic.

>>23978631
pain is primary, thought is secondary. or else solve fermat's theorem with your hand on a blazing hot stove. we're waiting

>>23978631
You do, just not as painful as regular pain. more like the smallest negative thing possible. so negative that we could barely recognize it as "pain".

all consciousness can be broken down to either pleasure or pain, including abstract thinking.

>>23978628
Retard, the positive claim is "suffering ought to be avoided" not "God gives meaning to suffering". The second requires the first premise to be true, and that's precisely what I deny. Give me a justification for the moral imperative, dummy. The burden of proof here is yours.

>>23978626
>Suffering is evil!!!
>Why?
>B-Because it's, ok???!!?

>>23978636
inflicting harm on sentient beings is self-evidently evil. isn't your god a suffering god?

File: 9b2794e74b66a6b939116f68f(...).jpg (90 KB, 564x762)

90 KB JPG

>>23978630
They don't deny the world, they transcend suffering through purpose and meaning in Christ. "world-deniers" conflate a rejection of suffering's inherent negativity with a rejection of the world itself, which is a misunderstanding of their perspective. Saints do not deny the reality of suffering or pain; rather, they integrate it into a teleological framework that imbues it with meaning. For example, saints often view suffering as an opportunity for spiritual growth, deepened compassion, or union with the divine. This is not a denial of the world but a transformative engagement with it.

You're just ignoring the broader context of their actions. Such acts are often profound expressions of moral or spiritual commitment, not rejections of life or existence. The pain is real, but their response to it is rooted in a transcendent purpose, which materialistic frameworks like anti-natalism fail to account for. Saints see life, with all its struggles, as valuable precisely because of its connection to something greater, such as divine will or the pursuit of virtue. In contrast, anti-natalism's approach to suffering tends to frame it as an insurmountable problem with no redeeming aspects, leading to the conclusion that life itself should be avoided. This perspective is fundamentally reductive.

Anti-natalists must also justify why their worldview dismisses the possibility that suffering can have meaning or value. Without a teleological framework, their moral stance remains arbitrary. Saints and ascetics provide a good counterexample to this subjectiveness.

>>23978633
Why should anything be valued outside of our sentiments??? if I took all your pain and pleasure, you wouldn't do anything. you would just die.
value is only in pain and pleasure, even curiosity is pain and pleasure. there is no value to matter.
>There is no "point" outside of life, life is the prerequisite for the very concept of "points", you cannot ponder it beyond it.
exactly, there is no point to life as a biochemical process, except for this annoying this life does called consciousness, in which value arises YOU DICKHEAD. wherein things start to have negative meaning. you dumbfuck.

>>23978634
There's many people accostumed to functioning in constant pain. Pain nor pleasure prevent thinking to the level you are implying or else we would lose even our identity in their experience.

>>23978636
no it is not a positive claim you idiot, if I drowned you in acid you wouldn't say to me
ACTUALLY THAT IS A POSITIVE CLAIM THAT I WANT TO AVOID THIS PAIN
you would forget about all reason and all value except for getting out of your situation.
pain and pleasure transcend your prefrontal cortex.

>>23978639
Anon there's no such thing as self-evident evil. You are just spouting a dogma. Justify your moral standard or get out.

>Suffering God
Anon, Christ, Christianity and the Bible constantly praise suffering as a positive vehicle of redemption and healing in many cases. There's positive, good suffering.

>>23978641
yes, their suffering, their pain, is linked to a higher purpose. you won't find a single saint or desert father who affirms a world of horrific gratuitous suffering for its own sake, which proves my point. what would be the basis of their compassion if not global suffering? what are the desert saints being released from when sleeping standing up in thorn bushes? an evil, fallen world, transmitted through their passions, which antinatalism rightly diagnoses. nevermind the monks and ascetics of the east, where the world-denial is explicit and uncompromising.

i'm not an antinatalist. i think benatar's a clown. but you born again porn addicts trivializing pain and suffering because you haven't turned 25 yet are not serious thinkers

>>23978645
pain within obvious tolerances. some grindset faggot is not a theodicy

>>23978650
you're a child and are not worth talking to. don't (you) me again.

>>23978654
there is no higher purpose you delusional asshole. you need to be hospitalized for your delusions. and if there is, you don't know what it is. so until you have proof, you don't get to justify life outside of your own. you don't get to force people to exit here.

>>23978648
Retard, you are making a stupid moral argument "we ought to avoid suffering" based only on the observation of individuals to it, begging, begging that I grant you that the pre-programmed reactions of your body bear any trascendental, metaphysical moral value necessary for your claim to be true. My reaction to be drowned in acid is relevant to the ought as much as a tree falling is relevant to the moral value of a forest. It's a retarded, shock-value non sequitur.

If pain and pleasure trascend my brain then they also tracend moral claims, meaning, anti-natalism. Dumbfuck.

>>23978662
no no no no, you clearly have a functioning brain capable of reasoning.
if they transcend reason then they are more valuable than anything, meaning that pain is negatively valuable. and an anti-natal conclusion can be made from that.

>>23978661
the higher purpose is freedom from evil and suffering

>>23978658
You are a retard throwing a tantrum because you want people to grant you free moral claims and the childest notion of self-evident morality. I accept your concesion.

>>23978666
>murdering small animals and ejaculating on their corpses is not self-evidently evil and depraved because, uh, there isn't a clickbait youtube arrow indicating it as evil
comical. farcical, even. like i said, you're a child.

>>23978664
>they transcend reason then they are more valuable than anything, meaning that pain is negatively valuable

Retard, more unjustified value judgements. Why trascendence in this paradigm would grant any value? Where is this value grounded? What the fuck negative value even means in this context? Pure question-begging.

>>23978665
yes, that's what I'm trying to allude to. especially under idealism. as far as anyone knows this is it.

>>23978669
>If I keep using gross edgy teen-tier imagery and cheap shock value people will give me morality for free
>Muh animals are valuable because animal cruelty icky

Keep going zoom zoom, keep projecting your own western humanistic morality to a univeral status despite only existing from the 18th century onwards. Don't justify your own crap at all, logical argumentation is icky anyway.

>>23978680
>those dastardly libs invented ahimsa
sad. i don't know how people like you function

>>23978680
not anon.
you are so retarded, you're beyond any help.
the pain that animals feel is real, you fuck. you dumb idiot. no words can express or describe the irrationality that you act on.
it's not "western humansitic morality", it is objective, westerners just got there first.
there were always individuals that understood that a thing was wrong or right. just because 99% of humanity are idiots doesn't mean shit.

>>23978686
>westerners just got there first
i agree with you 100%, but they didn't. the jains did. the jains make the gautama look like severige

>>23978644
>Why should anything be valued outside of our sentiments?
I am not assuming value outside of sentiments.
>exactly, there is no point to life as a biochemical process, except for this annoying this life does called consciousness, in which value arises YOU DICKHEAD. wherein things start to have negative meaning. you dumbfuck.
This message is meaningless. Read more or something, you're too retarded for this conversation.

>>23978700
Just because you presume that I know less from the way that I communicate doesn't mean that your presumption is true.
I promise you that I know as much as you do, if not more. excuse my horrible communication, I'm not good at verbalizing my thoughts.
if you're looking for genuine conversation I would love to continue otherwise.
I'm not familiar with a lot of philosophical academic jargon, but I have my own thoughts on these subjects.

>>23978686
>>23978684
Are you two retarded? There's no argument in either of these posts, just assertions and question begging. How do you know animal experience pain the same way as humans? Now you have access to animal qualia? Even if we grant that why animals experiencing pain would give us any kind of moral self-evident rule that animal cruelty is bad? Not all cultures think so.

You keep appealing to this suppossed self-evident principle that didn't existed for most of human history nor is universal today refusing to justify it or defend it on logical grounds, rather using gross cheap shock value and emotional appeals like bitchy soccer moms. And I don't even deny that animal cruelty is bad, but "self-evident"? Bullshit.

>>23978725
sad

>>23978725
The issue is that they keep derailing the fucking thread, very few coherent statements were made. this entire thread is rage bait.
everytime I start to dive into a subject some retard start a ragebait contest.

>>23978729
>le coherent statements!! le emotionally manipulative arguments!!!
i hope you grow out of this phase soon. harming sentient beings is self-evidently bad by virtue of the fact there's a categorical difference between living beings and inanimate matter. simple as. i don't need to prove shit to anyone

>>23978732
fuck you, you nigger.
great I got baited again.

>>23978735
>murdering small animals for sexual pleasure? torturing young women for your lust? bombing innocents to line your pockets?
>proof? i need saul kripke on the case
kek. comical. farcical. parodic!

>>23978738
Dude, I'm arguing on your side, I raged so hard I barely read what you said before I replied to you.

>>23978743
it's cool. based.

Routlege: Left

>>23978732
So, you concede the argument, retard? You concede that you can't justify your moral judgement about animal cruelty nor that the "categorical difference" between dead matter and life grants you any self-evident moral statement? Bitch by saying "I don't need to prove shit" you are yielding the debate and admiting you have nothing beyond an arbitrary taste.

You are a question-begging cultist, not a rational human being.

>>23978738
>Having a logical justification for your beliefs and questioning its soundness is actually dumb!!!

Retard.

>>23978753
you're so mad. one day you'll learn to see with your eyes

>>23978757
i've played this game long enough that nothing will appease retards like you. you're just morally defective, or still learning. either way, i'm not interested

>>23978765
Then why do you even come here? If you don't have a rational justification that can convince us "retards"" of the strength and soundness of your position then you are just losing time here dude. It seems that a cult for soccer moms or impresionable college kids would be more up your speed.

>>23978770
my life isn't dictated by syllogisms

>>23978778
You are right. Rather, it seems dictated by self-granted axioms and dogmas with no justification beyond your own gut feeling, if this conversation is an indicative.

>>23978783
gut feelings are based. syllogisms are for nerds. one day you'll get it

>>23978765
I think they suffer from some type of fundamental thinking error, and I don't mean something that's special to humans, a thinking error that's buried deep in our brains and is millions of years old.
intuitively they think they matter more than their surroundings. we don't. we understand that we don't. that's the difference.

File: Briton_Rivière_-_The_Temp(...).jpg (51 KB, 944x566)

51 KB JPG

>>23978791
>intuitively they think they matter more than their surroundings. we don't. we understand that we don't. that's the difference.
well said. precisely. you've done the work. there's no getting through it. I don't give a fuck anymore

>>23978787
not anon, but I understand you more than you understand your self. you are just plain wrong.
you don't matter. your gut feeling is exclusive only to you, it sprouts from something more universal. yours is is just in overdrive + you have an underdeveloped brain that doesn't let you understand this on an intellectual level.
you are spiritually as well as mentally corrupt.

>>23978796
gut feelings operate on a bell curve

>>23978800
Not sure how this adds to the conversation.

>>23978806
low iq people act according to gut instincts. midwits need syllogisms and reams of academic papers to touch grass. high iq people wrap back around to operating on gut instinct. you got a real uphill battle fight to tell me a tirthankar or a tathagata needs to logically justify their soteriology. i can't tell if you're the guy agreeing with me or not based on your syntax. if you are, sad.

There is something primary before abstract thought, yes I know.
I'm just saying that it's bad because it's pointless, if you engage in it anyways if you're high IQ, then you've wasted your IQ.
you're worse than the brutes.
furthermore, there is no point in conflict because we are all that primary thing.

>>23978825
the american indians had a better grasp of what life is compared to americans, enslaved to abstraction and "manifest destiny". schelling understood this, too, if you won't take the lakotas for their word. he gambled his entire system of positive philosophy on it. the a posteriori will always trump the a priori of pure thought

File: 1731346966509369.jpg (81 KB, 1000x512)

81 KB JPG

>>23976623
Benatar's thesis of inequality between lack of pleasure and lack of suffering is wrong. While suffering is bad, lack of suffering isn't good, it's just neutral, like lack of pleasure. Further, pleasure is as good in and of itself as suffering is bad in and of itself. Taken together, this implies that rather than minimizing suffering by minimizing existence, our imperative is the classical utilitarian demand of maximizing pleasure less pain. We shouldn't be seeking to voluntarily go extinct to minimize suffering lives, we should be seeking to construct as many minds in a state of maximum pleasure as possible and populating the universe with them. Our goal isn't the non-existance of consciousness, but maximizing pleasurable consciousness throughout the universe. I suggest using Von Neumann probes to convert as much of the universe's inert matter as possible into artificial minds designed to experience perpetual, maximum pleasure which they are designed to never bore of. This should be the end goal that technological society strives towards, which makes all of our suffering up to this point worthwhile.

>>23978849
>This should be the end goal that technological society strives towards, which makes all of our suffering up to this point worthwhile.
clownish. god save me

>>23978849
>Benatar's thesis of inequality between lack of pleasure and lack of suffering is wrong
debatable at best
>While suffering is bad, lack of suffering isn't good, it's just neutral, like lack of pleasure. Further, pleasure is as good in and of itself as suffering is bad in and of itself.
ok? good so far.
> Taken together, this implies that rather than minimizing suffering by minimizing existence, our imperative is the classical utilitarian demand of maximizing pleasure less pain. We shouldn't be seeking to voluntarily go extinct to minimize suffering lives, we should be seeking to construct as many minds in a state of maximum pleasure as possible and populating the universe with them. Our goal isn't the non-existance of consciousness, but maximizing pleasurable consciousness throughout the universe. I suggest using Von Neumann probes to convert as much of the universe's inert matter as possible into artificial minds designed to experience perpetual, maximum pleasure which they are designed to never bore of. This should be the end goal that technological society strives towards, which makes all of our suffering up to this point worthwhile.
ok, so the main issue here, is that first of all none of this is necessary. we don't to make brains that are in good hedonic states.
another thing is, you can't guarantee such a system to be stable, things that can go wrong will go wrong. entropy will ensure this.
you are just creating more potential for needless (((needless <--- for the dimwits here))) suffering.

>>23978859
It's utilitarianism taken to it's logical conclusion, and utilitarianism is the only self-evident, logically consistent system of morality. Pleasure is directly experienced as good in and of itself, and therefore demands to be maximized.

>>23978878
The issue is that you can't create a stable environment for that.

>>23978633
>There is no "point" outside of life, life is the prerequisite for the very concept of "points", you cannot ponder it beyond it.
there is no point to life because with life comes negative value/meaning.

>>23976623
It's fairly simple. You simply point out that his nihilistic beliefs are based on nihilistic morals. Nothing is better or worse than anything else. So why should suffering be considered so according to him?

This thread needs a filter by IQ for anything productive to come out of it.
we're talking at least 140.

>>23976648
>dont drag anyone else who might just agree by peer pressure or love into something that carries severe implications later in life
society and religion are literally screaming and demanding procreation from each other

hey listen, I just won't gamble on someone else's life. just not gonna do it, OK?
HHAHAHHAHAHAH

>>23979054
Ok Mr Einstein what's your opinion?

>>23977788
You think I'm joking but he literally wrote a paper defending pedophilia

any sufficiently conscious species with empathy will become extinct by refusing to procreate. perhaps this is an explanation for the fermi paradox.
if there are advanced civilizations out there, I'm confident they won't be peaceful

>>23979063
if we had mod powers that would be nice.

The pursuit of meaning is just the pursuit of pleasure, meaning is just an abstract concept that brings pleasure to homosapiens. and the lack of which brings pain (anxiety).
if we can recognize this, then we can go straight to the source. but retarded homosapien is so bothered by the idea, that it rejects it and calls it names like a toddler such as hedonism and or nihilism.
there is no rational basis for the chase of the so called "meaning". it is just a silly abstraction that homosapien is confused by.
there is a rational basis for the pursuit of "real meaning" which is just your lack of pain or anxiety.
you see the buddhists, they don't care about meaning, they reject pleasure out of pragmatism, but they reject pain as well. they got it figured out.
it is safe to dismiss meaning addicts and value whores as mental cases.

I would add. meaning is the enemy of reason. yes "reason" is an agent of something deeper, but it is more valuable than will (root of "meaning"). because, "will" is blind, it will take us nowhere. intelligence must overcome will, despite being of it. meaning is the trojan through which "will" infiltrates and corrupts unbiased intellect. we don't need meaning. we need wisdom.

>>23976813
>it's true that we just leave open questions unanswered but you should just move on to other unanswered questions
Is this really your argument?

>>23976938
>there's an answer to this problem - scifi wishful thinking we're not even near achieving
You realise Benatar addresses this, right?

File: 2614177_sensitivity.jpg (47 KB, 555x376)

47 KB JPG

>>23976943
>his proof of it being le harmful and "mind shattering" are /pol/ cherrypicked nonsense
You have no idea what you're talking about. You're overemotional over something you know nothing about.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26724395/

>>23976977
He addresses this. You didn't bother reading even the first few pages of his book.

>>23977161
>pain is a tool used to make sure you stay alive and accumulate more pain for as long as possible
Yes, Benatar knows that. He doesn't say that it's "good" or "bad". Just that pain is something intolerable that we naturally have an inclination fear and avoid (for good reasons). If the point of this tool is for us to be alive and accumulate more of it, then it makes no sense. It doesn't serve our agenda as humans who want to avoid suffering.
>I don't want to avoid suffering
You haven't suffered, you don't suffer and you don't know what suffering is. That's why you're so nonchalant about it.

File: lowIQ.png (62 KB, 734x724)

62 KB PNG

>>23979043
>I'm mentally ill and actually enjoy suffering
>I'm neutral towards pain and pleasure (lying but doesn't even realise it)
His point is actually very simple but you twist it on purpose to be a contrarian. This shithole is called "lit" yet you all somehow manage to be dumber than the anons from other boards.

>>23979226
His point is not simple. Hardly anyone here has even read the book let alone the secondary literature. That out of context graph is NOT the argument. The assumetry is a highly technical analytic argument that proposes to explain 'the asymmetry' in population ethics, among others proposed by benatar. It's an attempt to provide what Derek Parfit called "theory x". People just post that graph, and then debate that graph, and its all a gigantic waste of time. Nobody even grasps that the value judgments in the right hand columns are explicitly made by benatar with respect to someone (unborn) counterfactually represented. These threads are such a waste of fucking time.

>>23978552
Is it a crime to have time or something?

>>23979226
>Pain=Bad
>Pleasure=Good

>Presence of pain=Bad
>Presence of pleasure=Good

>Absence of pain=Good
>Absence of pleasure=Not bad
Isn't absence of pleasure bad then? Why did he pull out a whole neutral category out of his ass?

>>23980071
dont know about benatar, but pleasure isn't good.

>>23979820
in most jurisdictions north of mexico, yes actually.

Suffering is a phenomenon innate to life, life is a phenomenon innate to entropy. If we cease our existence as species today, some other life form will evolve to sapience (and probably has in some other place in the Universe) and comprehend its experience of suffering the same way Benatar has. It's a never-ending cycle of death and rebirth. There is no point to ending it this way, it won't solve the problem.

>>23979075
>a weak-minded mentally ill Jew refuses to procreate so an advanced species somewhere out there will do the same

>>23979075
kind of based. you're wrong but i appreciate the sort of dramatic stakes you're trying to give to the basic question of suicide versus murder.

File: 916wupFxCnL._AC_UF894,100(...).jpg (186 KB, 894x894)

186 KB JPG

>>23979146
>>23979158
words of gem

there is no point in killing yourself, another thousand (you) is born every time you ack.
so better to stick around and establish supercommunism to help every last person.

>>>/x/39258774
>>>/x/39253528

Verification not required.

>>23979226
>Pain=Bad
>Pleasure=Good
ok why

>>23981008
"Bad" here means repulsive and "good" means attractive. The dichotomy is then extrapolated as good and evil through the Golden Rule.
Western ascetics seeking pain in order to obtain a greater good does not refute the point. Even they admit they only seek the pain because the good which will be rewarded is greater. The good, for them, is either greater pleasure (heaven) or deliverance from greater suffering (hell).

I think I found a better test for intelligence than IQ.
a simple litmus test, if you think that pain isn't bad, then you're automatically retarded and should be put on disability and be eligible for welfare.

>>23981741
I would support this as an unemployed bodybuilder

>>23978849
>which makes all of our suffering up to this point worthwhile
Oh really? Where is my reward then?

Good god is life so gay, I just want to confront everyone on why they think this shit is worth enforcing on new generations.
I hate Bill Gates, I hate Elon, I hate people that want to perpetuate this mess.