I've been thinking about Benatar's arguments and honestly the logic is pretty airtight if you accept the premises. We're basically thrown into a meat grinder from birth: constant physical pain, psychological exhaustion, and worst of all, this inescapable moral trap where just existing means you're stepping on someone else to survive. Every "good" thing in life isn't actually intrinsic value, it's just us frantically patching holes in a sinking ship. Pleasure is reactive damage control, not genuine positivity. And nobody consents to this, your parents basically made a unilateral decision to throw you into terminal decay because they were bored or wanted meaning in their own lives. They gambled with your suffering to alleviate their existential dread. The asymmetry is insane, the non-existent can't be deprived of anything but the existent are guaranteed structural harm and moral corruption. Sure maybe life is worth continuing once you're here and you've built coping mechanisms, but starting it? That's an unnecessary imposition of suffering on someone who never asked for it. The ethical math just doesn't work.
Brother, how many years have you been spamming this?
>>24881568>constant physical pain, psychological exhaustion, and worst of all, this inescapable moral trap where just existing means you're stepping on someone else to survive
>>24881568the logic is pretty airtight>we live in the dream of a small rabbit if you accept the premises.
>>24881571it's a different intern with an alphabet agency every few months
Very wrongRead Spinoza
>>24881568>airtight>he hasn't killed himself
>>24881653The hell you're in has no exit, there's no escape.
>>24881669If Benatar believed what he'd wrote then he wouldn't be aliveShrimple as
I don’t mind a little pain and suffering. It is what it is and we make it worse but dwelling on how horrible it is. Many primitive cultures subject themselves to pain deliberately because they consider it part of strength and consciousness. I won’t say I enjoy pain but it is the cost of the novelty of consciousness, which after all is a brief period of time divided by eternity
Every argument against antinatalism is a cope
>>24881568That's because you are:A. Jerking off to much, causing your dopamine receptors to become insensitive and lowering your testosterone.B. You don't exercise (enough) making it almost impossible for your body to go into momentary high periods.C. You eat to often and not the right products (fish, meat, eggs, veggies, fruits, nuts, etc) and do not sunbathe enough.
>>24881568>nobody consents to thisAnyone can exit whenever they want. There's plenty of 18 wheeler trucks bounding about the highways. Instant off has never been easier.>better to have never beenSoon enough you'll not exist and you'll have no more.>but starting it? That's the point of life, the only point.>>24881956What a petty, childish ideology.
>>24881568
>>24881669this guy escaped, why haven't you?
To every single poster here: If it's such a silly claim, then why not explain the flaws in the argument? Why resort to retard-maxing and ad hominem? Try to think about it before you type up slop
Suffering is an ontological good because life was created to suffer and inflict suffering.hope that helps
>>24881568this nigga forgot one key flaw in his argument: A white ass nigga like me. Life aint never been hard, 22 kids with 25 women, sorry libtard, just be a GOD next time.
Every day you don't KYS you condemn your self of tomorrow the very same thing you condemn parents of. Your future is no less a different subjective suffering from the one you have today. Continuity of self over time is a lie of the archons. Save your future self from pain, be an hero.
>>24882692>you condemn your self of tomorrow the very same thing you condemn parents of.Now that's extremely interesting. I would say that I am entitled to consent to it, regardless of different theories of the self, and so it isn't wrong in that way.
>>24882692>oh there are people suffering all of the world? I know what do to help them, I will kmsbad faith argumentation. all natalists know to do
>>24881568Then die
>>24882667>t. psychopath
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder
This 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?
Anti-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.
>>24881568Benatar's whole thing relies on this sneaky bait-and-switch that's honestly embarrassing once you see it. When he talks about avoiding suffering he's like "well obviously the potential person would want to avoid pain if they could choose" treating them as a rational agent with preferences. But then when it comes to missing out on pleasure he suddenly goes "wait there's nobody there to be deprived lmao" treating them as complete nothingness. Pick a lane, dude. Either the non-existent person is something we can reason about counterfactually (in which case they could just as easily prefer existing despite the suffering) or they're absolute void (in which case we can't say shit about whether avoiding their pain is good either). The whole asymmetry collapses into perfect symmetry the moment you force him to be consistent. His supporting intuitions about procreation duties are cope too, plenty of normies explicitly say they had kids so the kids could enjoy life's goods, so miss me with that "nobody thinks this way" nonsense. Bottom line is if you want to make the antinatalist case just describe how much life actually sucks materially instead of trying to logic-proof it with this broken formal argument. At least that's honest.
>>24883283>When he talks about avoiding suffering he's like "well obviously the potential person would want to avoid pain if they could choose"but this is not the argument. It's not about a potential person, it's about no person at all, a completely non-existent entity, so you can't talk about someone before being born. This is why the title of the book is "Never to have been".>The whole asymmetry collapses into perfect symmetry the moment you force him to be consistent.No, you are the one not being consistent. When talking about a potential person (which is not a person at all, it can't suffer or choose anything, you can't talk about the being) as being capable of missing anything.
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
>>24883332Why 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 the logic is inconsistent they retreat to the idea of their 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.
>>24883283>His supporting intuitions about procreation duties are cope too, plenty of normies explicitly say they had kids so the kids could enjoy life's goods, so miss me with that "nobody thinks this way" nonsenseagain this assumes the kids exists somehow beyond space and time and get summoned somehow to the parents, but no, the person created to experience "the joys of life" was never capable to say "Yes, I want to be born. and experience this and that pleasure!" the new entity is forced to have a will, desires, passions, before it even exists properly. that's the asymmetry.notice how most parents are not happy with their own lives and want to force someone to live their own desires. They will force that new person to do stuff against the will of the person because "they know better" - but this happiness will never be achieved - for the new person or for the parents. Natalists can only cope but the truth is if they remove the cope they have nothing left. They have no arguments.
>>24881568I don't even need to read this since I just hate humanity and view it as worthless from my personal experiences and spiritual visions. What's the point in reading anti natalist philosophy when I'm already disgusted by demon crotch spawn?
>>24883253Based. We need more mentally ill psychopaths to inflict suffering on the world. Retvrn to the golden age of serial killers
I realized there's no reason to have kids that doesn't lead back to some selfish cope about being alive.
I'm less of an anti-natalism person and more of a THD guy
>>24883049>>24882089>>24881671>>24881653If you don't kill yourself you might convince more people to become anti-natalist, end their lives, or kill others, thus ending more circles of life, so overall it's a better option than just ending your one circle of life.
>>24883367>copewhy do trannies on this board love this buzzword nowadays?
>>24883382The average antinatalist is less influential over the period of their entire life than the average father is in a week. Cry all you want but it's true.
Antinatalism isn't enough, we need annihilationism.
>>24884484based. politics would be a lot more fun if this became some radical counterbalance to neoreaction
>>24881568Literally all arguments have airtight logic if you accept the premises. The real question is: are those premises true?
>>24885059>The real question is: are those premises true?They are, and anyone who says otherwise is either coping or arguing in bad faith.
>>24881568I think procreation is carried hard by 4 types of people>accidental almost half of pregnancies were not planned, really puts things into perspective>religious they have the most children, many of them are third worlders that give zero fuck about anticonception >blissfully ignorant optimistspeople who genuinely believe that life is a miracle, never endured any serious hardships >peer pressureddumbest of the bunch, basically just following the herd, zero questioning abilities
>>24885805Maybe they just lack deep empathy or care for consent. Maybe they are ok with reproduction being a selfish act, and never think much about it.Our relation to the axioms of a system many times are tied to our sensabilities.
>>24885059>The real question is: are those premises true?I think the real question is "can you find good counter arguments?" if you can't, might as well say the argument is sound
>>24881568Hello anti natalists , what drugs should I take to feel like the son of Jesus? I'm tired of this shit, I have to take control over my life.
>>24881568Cabrera is better:>https://dn790003.ca.archive.org/0/items/discomfort-and-moral-impediment/Discomfort%20and%20Moral%20Impediment.pdfAlso this:>https://antinatalism.info/quality-of-human-life-and-non-existence-some-criticisms-of-david-benatars-formal-and-material-positions/
>>24885857>half of pregnancies were not plannedDon't care. >they have the most childrenThey're the most successful. >blissfully ignorant optimistsThis is just your (unjustified) ego speaking. >dumbest of the bunchHe says while demonstrating ideological possession.
>>24881568what's actually catastrophically boring is how neither you or the ones calling you a glowie/jew won't ever do anything to confirm/disprove each other and just continue to mouthbreathe and whine ad nauseam onlineyou won't become some villain after losing your mind and moral compass alongside it, doing the most unhinged of acts just as a statement and neither the puritans won't live a more fulfilling life to the point of not having to get into idiotic pissing contests on tibetan yak forums after supposedly going to le non-pozzed church and finding a meaning in life
is sex with blood related siblings purely for the pursuit of pleasure acceptable?
why is this bullshit book constantly floating to the top of /lit/feels like a psyop
>>24886433PsySlop
>>24881568>https://philosopherjuliocabrera.blogspot.com/2020/05/articles-and-books.html>Asymmetries begin to work not because they are based on firm and undoubted intuitions (we always have rival intuitions, endless conflicts between intuitions), but because the world is a bad place, because life is so poor. But this is already one material argument and it is needed to save the asymmetries. Without this material support they do not stand, neither logically or intuitively or axiologically, in a way that cannot be infinitely counter-argued. (After all, we are not compelled to have the same intuitions as Benatar, and the only thing he can do is to defend them, without any possible philosophical checkmate).>I think that if material argumentation is indispensable, if formal argument cannot stand without it, and if this material argumentation is as extraordinarily strong as the texts of Schopenhauer, Cioran, Benatar and Cabrera among others show, then we could ultimately dismiss the famous asymmetry as perfectly unnecessary (along with all the controversy it aroused, however fruitful and intense) and to show the main pessimistic and antinatalist points only through material arguments, more than sufficient not only to prove that coming into existence always causes serious harm, but also the antinatalist thesis that procreation is always immoral.
>anti-natalismreddit cringe>pro-mortalismvgh, fvcking based
>>24886433>this antinatalist thing is le heckin triggering and problematic! it shouldn't be discussed here!!
>>24886433yup, 4chan board "literature" is the best place to do a psy-op against procreation
>>24888126I mean you either get the crazy religious fucks here that multiply like rabbits or total incels that hate everything
>>24881568Not procreating is harmful because it deprives beings of existence which includes good things like sex and tasty food.
>>24889231name one being who doesn't exist
>>24889231fuckin hylic
>>24889246Your biological father who is proud of (You).
>>24881568David Benatar should kill himself
>>24883382>end their lives, or kill othersIf you convince people to kill themselves or to murder, you will nullify their potential for convincing more people of becoming anti-natalist, so Benatar would not approve of this. I believe he would argue against suicide and especially against murder.
>>24881568>the logic is pretty airtight if you accept the premisesIt is only airtight if you accept the premises and refuse to consider any additional ones. For example:>nobody consents to thisCorrect. At the same time... nobody's consent was violated, since you didn't exist at the time. Adjusting the POV by half an inch makes the anti-natalist point - here about consent - fall apart completely.>the non-existent can't be deprived of anything but the existent are guaranteed structural harm and moral corruptionCorrect. At the same time, if you measure ethics in goodness as opposed to lack of harm (as is the primary paradigm of ethics), the non-existent is the worst off. The existent is guaranteed to gain ... otherwise there'd be nothing to be subject to harm or corruption. Again you see that the anti-natalist position does not hold water unless you look at it one particular way. The ethical math just doesn't work. As for the rest:>constant physical painSee a doctor.>inescapable moral trap where just existing means you're stepping on someone else to surviveThis is a function of your model of ethics, not a function of the world. You're complaining about your own opinion.>Every "good" thing in life isn't actually intrinsic value, it's just us frantically patching holes in a sinking ship.A leap from unproven opinion into a circularly reasoned framing.>Pleasure is reactive damage control, not genuine positivity.Fair point. Pleasure isn't a solution. Meaning is.
>>24891746>>nobody consents to this>Correct. At the same time... nobody's consent was violated, since you didn't exist at the time.every being that can exist can't consent to existence before they exist. It's not about a violation of consent but about a impossibility of consent. so you are misinterpreting the premise.>if you measure ethics in goodness as opposed to lack of harm (as is the primary paradigm of ethics), the non-existent is the worst off.you are talking about Fairy Land not about the reality of existence.>>Pleasure is reactive damage control, not genuine positivity.>Fair point. Pleasure isn't a solution. Meaning is.meaning is everywhere and can mean anything. Your arguments are a bunch of stupid copes
>>24891774>you are misinterpreting the premiseI understand the premise and I agree with it. I'm just pointing out it doesn't conclude a problem. The moral problem around consent is its violation. There was no violation here. That a non-existent entity didn't give consent is entirely unproblematic. Every second infinity of non-existent entities withhold consent from an infinity of events. It's a non-issue. But you can phrase it in a way that reminds an issue, which is what anti-natalists manage.>>if you measure ethics in goodness as opposed to lack of harm (as is the primary paradigm of ethics), the non-existent is the worst off.>you are talking about Fairy Land not about the reality of existence.I'm talking about the reality of ethics. How imaginary the discipline is, is a different question. But it is about the good. Not about merely avoiding the bad. Anti-natalism falls apart once you stray away from the latter.>meaning is everywhere and can mean anything.Not in my experience.The ethical math just doesn't work. It's mostly rhetorics.
>>24891746>nobody's consent was violated, since you didn't exist at the time.fucking retard
>>24891805Woah you just violated 100,000,000x non-existent entities consent by posting that! Are you not ashamed??
>>24891790>The moral problem around consent is its violation. There was no violation here. That a non-existent entity didn't give consent is entirely unproblematic.philosophical problems are abstract anyway, I don't think there is only one problem you can say about morality of consent and that's it, set in stone. If there are poor people who have a bunch of kids, would you say many of their problems are not linked with the fact that they couldn't give their consent at birth? I don't see why you would limit yourself to an arbitrary issue regarding consent and not all issues of consent. >I'm talking about the reality of ethics. How imaginary the discipline is, is a different question. But it is about the good. Not about merely avoiding the bad. Anti-natalism falls apart once you stray away from the latter.then Benatar's argument is about meta-ethics. Are ethics good for you, as a being? the dichotomy only exists when there's existence. why not remove it?>>meaning is everywhere and can mean anything.>Not in my experience.isn't that ironic?
>>24891812> If there are poor people who have a bunch of kids, would you say many of their problems are not linked with the fact that they couldn't give their consent at birth?Linked? Who knows... If I were to use as vague as possible, I would naturally retain a lot of rhetorical freedom in articulating my conclusions. Take the rhetorics away and only valid conclusions remain. Anti-natalist ones don't seem to survive that rhetorics-check. So yes, Anon, inability to do the impossible might be "linked" to millions of things. Consent still wasn't violated and no ethical problem is established.>Benatar's argument is about meta-ethicsIt really isn't. It's a very typical ethical argument.>Are ethics good for you, as a being? the dichotomy only exists when there's existence. why not remove it?Remove what? Ethics? Existence? Captcha: WWAHH
>>24891852>Anon, inability to do the impossible might be "linked" to millions of things. Consent still wasn't violated and no ethical problem is established.so when people think about having babies it's completely ethical to not give a shit about the conditions and their own lifestyle that future being will be born in? because there is no consent violation, so then any ethical problem disappears? you can't put yourself in your parents position now that you're old enough to be in their shoes? I think you can very well see how the creation of a future being is an ethical problem>Remove what? Ethics? Existence?you don't know what this thread is about?
>>24891876> because there is no consent violation, so then any ethical problem disappears?The goalpost isn't "any problem". It's consent. And consent was not violated. If you accept this and are ready to move on to other problems, just say the word.>I think you can very well see how the creation of a future being is an ethical problemNot really, no. I can see it has challenges that can be handled unethically, but creation of the being itself is perhaps the most ethical thing in the world.>>Remove what? Ethics? Existence?>you don't know what this thread is about?I know you keep moving goalposts (from ethics to meta-ethics, from consent problem to poverty problem...), so I'd rather ask. Being precise is the anti-natalist kryptonite.
>>24891881>The goalpost isn't "any problem". It's consent.yes, and you claim the impossibility of consent of someone to not be a problem when the subject is consent. >Not really, no. I can see it has challenges that can be handled unethically, but creation of the being itself is perhaps the most ethical thing in the world.you're posting on 4chan bro. if you believed this you must have 30 kids, right?>I know you keep moving goalposts (from ethics to meta-ethics, from consent problem to poverty problem...), so I'd rather ask. Being precise is the anti-natalist kryptonitewhen you say things like "ethics is about the good" or "meaning matters, not pleasure" without specifically describing what "good" or "meaning" is, I'm not really moving the goalposts by engaging with your claims. I gave an example of poor people having kids, is this moving the goalposts? >Being precise is the anti-natalist kryptonite.anything but giving examples of what the fuck you mean. you're only saying words with vague meaning and then acting like you debunked the argument.
>>24891904>>Not really, no. I can see it has challenges that can be handled unethically, but creation of the being itself is perhaps the most ethical thing in the world.>you're posting on 4chan bro. if you believed this you must have 30 kids, right?That is not right, no. I have neither the job nor the family nor diet that is the most ethical in the world. If you think that should shake my faith in my ethics and I should re-imagine them to fit my current life, you're just telling on yourself.So what's the ethical problem with creating a human being? We now know it's not consent, since it is not violated. Is it the risk that you might mess it up? That's the ethical problem? Uncertainty? Fear?
>>24891909>That is not right, no. I have neither the job nor the family nor diet that is the most ethical in the world. If you think that should shake my faith in my ethics and I should re-imagine them to fit my current life, you're just telling on yourself.but isn't the creation of the being itself the most ethical thing in the world for you? so you're living your life against your most precious principle that is, according to you "creation of the being itself"?can you explain
>>24891916Not really against, no. I'll be a father as soon as I'm ready to be one financially, emotionally and socially. Let me know if you need more explanation. Though judging from the fact you didn't have a single question about me not going for my idea of a most ethical job, you seem to understand it pretty well, don't you?
>>24881568>patching holes in a sinking shipwell, drown yourself then, faggot
>>24891972>I'll be a father as soon as I'm ready to be one financially, emotionally and socially.>>24891881>creation of the being itself is perhaps the most ethical thing in the world.you don't really believe what you're saying from one reply to another. if creation itself is the most ethical, you must do it above anything else, you said creation itself is the ethical - the most ethical even. can you understand what you are saying? if you must do a checklist of things to "become ethical" then you agree there is some ethical concern in creating a being, before you make it and it's capable of consent
I guess that's kind of a pointless thing to argue, since the whole thing is decided already. When you say that it's an imposition, they'll say that it's not because there was no one to impose it upon. When you say that there's a harm being done, they'll say that the harm is worth it and inherently good for the price of being conscious. If you disagree you're free to kill yourself. If you don't want to kill yourself that means you prefer existence to non-existence.It doesn't matter that the whole thing is much more complex than that. This is enough to make people stop considering it. People want to have children and even if you make a point against it there's always more than enough wiggle room to justify it.
>>24881568The human desire to have sex and procreate is so great that no amount of philosophical reasoning can override it.
>>24892494I think that's why antinatalism will always arrive in the supervillain genocide territory. There's just no other possible way for it to win, regardless of how correct it might be.
Why does antinatalism make people seethe?
>>24892520It turns most of the population into criminal jerks. It's subversive to what people consider to be natural. It calls for the extinction of mankind. It's linked to the mentally ill undesirable outcasts. Just a very unpleasant philosophy all around.
>>24892362>if creation itself is the most ethical, you must do it above anything elseCorrect. Which doesn't translate to "immediately". Again, you seem to have understood this with ethical jobs perfectly well, but seem to be playing dense in case of father-hood. But I have time, ask away. It's incredibly simple at the end of the day.>you agree there is some ethical concern in creating a beingSee >>24891881>>>>I can see it has challenges that can be handled unethically, but creation of the being itself is perhaps the most ethical thing in the world.
>>24891806Are you implying that creating a sentient life isn't ethically significant (positive, or negative) to the life you create? Have you ever stopped to seriously think about the principles involved?
>>24892535Unpleasant or destructive =/= true. Don't pretend to be interested in searching for the truth if you want to find a useful lie.
>>24892554No, I'm implying non-existent entities' consent logically cannot be taken into account.
>>24892547>Correct. Which doesn't translate to "immediately".the creation itself is the most important thing, ethically, but not immediately. you must first prove that you're a good father, that you can financially provide a good life, and the environment the being is going to start the life in. It's incredibly simple at the end of the day if you deny your own words in the same sentence. You're not engaging with the actual point of discussion.
>>24892615No idea where "prove" came from. I stand by everything I said and if my direct answers omit the point, then ask better questions. Again, precision is the anti-natalist kryptonite...
>>24892621>Again, precision is the anti-natalist kryptonite...you still haven't responded to why impossibility of consent is not an issue regarding consent and that means it has no ethical concern
>>24892629>you still haven't responded to why impossibility of consent is not an issue regarding consentThis was one of the first things I've done: >>24891790>>>>> The moral problem around consent is its violation. There was no violation here. That a non-existent entity didn't give consent is entirely unproblematic. Every second infinity of non-existent entities withhold consent from an infinity of events.>that means it has no ethical concernSee >>24891881>>>>>I can see it has challenges that can be handled unethically, but creation of the being itself is perhaps the most ethical thing in the world.I'm not sure what you think is happening itt, but you claimed that creating a being is a problem due to consent. Above posts explain that it isn't the case. If you want to move on to other supposed problems of becoming, feel free. But be precise lmao. Don't just give me "woah consent not enough? so it's all rosy always then? have 30 kids right now!!" ahahah it just makes you seem like you're neither thoughtful nor mature enough to be discussing ethics at all.
>>24892642>This was one of the first things I've doneI already replied to your post with the fact that you're statement "only violation of consent can be a problem" - this is just arbitrary from your part. there is ethical concern regarding concern when a being is not capable to give consent. all I understand from you is that you can't understand words
>>24892654>a being is not capable to give consentWhat being? There is none at that point. Again, that a NON-EXISTENT entity didn't give consent is entirely unproblematic. All I understand from you is that you can't understand words
>>24892660>Again, that a NON-EXISTENT entity didn't give consent is entirely unproblematicthe problem is exactly that a non-existent entity CAN'T give consent. if you keep claiming it's unproblematic it won't magically turn unproblematic.
>>24892662If something without an existing subject and affecting no existing being is a "real" problem then I would go ahead and ask you what a non-real problem looks like. Please.
>>24892666I don't get what you want me to respond. can you rephrase please?
>>24892674When you insist that something is actually a problem, I assume you distinguish between things that are real problems and things that aren't real problems. For example, that my mug didn't agree with my choice of tea isn't a real problem to me and I'd hope it isn't one to you. That a mugging victim didn't consent to having her posessions taken is a real problem, as I hope you see also.That a non-existent entity suffers non-existent effect by us ignoring non-existent consent is as close as one gets to the former kind. You seem to disagree. So I'm just making sure you're actually splitting ideas into "problems" and "not problems" to begin with or if all claims can be called problematic in your view just by virtue of being uttered.
>>24892682>I assume you distinguish between things that are real problems and things that aren't real problems. For example, that my mug didn't agree with my choice of tea isn't a real problem to me and I'd hope it isn't one to you. That a mugging victim didn't consent to having her posessions taken is a real problem, as I hope you see also.my point was that impossibility of consent, like actual, real impossible to give consent, like any being who was born in this world, is not able to give their consent to be or not be born. I don't see why you claim there is an ethical consent only when there is capability of consent. I don't see why you would think that logically
Which one is the GOAT?
>>24892682 The mug is not a sentient creature that will be affected by your decision to drink tea, but the sentient creature you create will be affected by your decision to create that creature. It's that simple. Ethics require extreme and dangerous impositions to be consensual, and in this case that is, as you say, logically impossible. Which means it can't be done with consent, even though it's an extreme and dangerous imposition onto someone. I can't have sex with a coma patient just because consent is an impossibility: standards of consent obviously do not become irrelevant when consent is logically impossible to get. Your value judgement as to whether it's ethical TO create a sentient life nonconsensually is a different question alotgether, but this is just very basic logic.
>>24892697Because otherwise you're complaining that a non-existent entity has a non-existent capacity. It's as much of a problem as an existent entity having an existent capacity - is this also something you'd find problematic and in need of solving? I ask again - is every statement problematic to you or are you capable of distinguishing problems from non-problems?
>>24892725>The mug is not a sentient creatureNeither is a non-existent entity.>the sentient creature you create will be affected by your decisionAnd that is something we can ethically discuss. But it has nothing to do with consent.> it can't be done with consentCorrect. But it's not a problem since no consent is violated. >I can't have sex with a coma patient just because consent is an impossibilityIt is a possibility, it was just not given.
>>24892726>Because otherwise you're complaining that a non-existent entity has a non-existent capacity.the problem is explicitly stated - a being can't consent before being born. that's the problem. >but there was no one there to be able to consentyes, that's the problem.
>>24892728>The mug is not a sentient creature >Neither is a non-existent entity. re-read my post until you understand the very simple point
>>24892752>a being can't consent before being born. that's the problem.And I'm asking why it is one, since it's indistinguishable from a non-proble. PS: I love how you dodge the question whether "non-existent entity has a non-existent capacity" and "existent entity having an existent capacity" are both problematic. You realized, didn't you?
>>24892762>And I'm asking why it is onebecause the nature of existence is against that being's happiness and wellbeing
>>24892754Your point was understood and addressed many times over. As Einstein said: "everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." I recommend you to reflect on the part that says "but not simpler". That bringing a person into this world carries an ethical risk is an obvious fact. That this risk should be swept under the umbrella of "consent" is a framing so simplistic and low-resolution it could only hold water in the most brief and unserious of discussions. Under scrutiny it falls apart and this decomposition is not much delayed by "but it must be a consent problem, it must!".>>24892774>>And I'm asking why it is one>because the nature of existence is against that being's happiness and wellbeingI'm not asking about your opinions on existence. I'm asking why "non-existent entity has a non-existent capacity" and "existent entity having an existent capacity" aren't both problematic, since they are logically equivalent. You don't have an answer. Because neither one is problematic. Because the sentiment you're trying to express doesn't actually relate to consent. It relates to an apriori opinion about existence that you're trying to insert somewhere and can't seem to find where.
>>24892777>I'm asking why "non-existent entity has a non-existent capacity" and "existent entity having an existent capacity" aren't both problematic, since they are logically equivalent.because this thread is about antinatalism>Because the sentiment you're trying to express doesn't actually relate to consent.it does when the subject is antinatalism and you specifically attacked this point of Benatar's argument. here >>24891746>>nobody consents to this>Correct. At the same time... nobody's consent was violated,
>>24892777Your focus on "a non-existent entity" shows you do not understand. The entity doesn't exist IF and only if they are not created. If they are created, then we have an entity who exists, who has been directly affected by a decision someone has made for them.Why would this particular extreme and dangerous imposition be an exception to the rules of consent, rather than just a distinction? It meets all the criteria, and your focus on your temporal confusion is not interesting.
>>24892788>>I'm asking why "non-existent entity has a non-existent capacity" and "existent entity having an existent capacity" aren't both problematic, since they are logically equivalent.>because this thread is about antinatalismTHANK YOU! You're entirely correct, Anon. Two logically equivalent claims are being judged to be differently problematic by you for one and one reason alone - because this is what's necessary to argue anti-natalism. The moment we'd look at it logically, this anti-natalist point folds. Which goes back to what I said in >>24891746. Anti-natalism cannot survive if you try to reflect but a single additional fact or scrutinize a single thought process within it. I think this thread has been insightful enough. Godspeed to you and whatever it is that attracts you to this sophistry, I sure hope you find different (more wise) ways of indulging.
>>24892816to refute antinatalism you have to engage with the arguments. not the ones in your imagination
>>24892804The entity does not exist when the decision is made so its consent is not relevant. It's not an exception. It's how consent works. My mug might gain consciousness tomorrow while the tea is still in it. It will not be an issue of consent. But again, it's been clear enough that you're not coming from necessarily a logical place, but from a place where you simply need consent to function as a vehicle for your particular concerns and sentiments. If them being stuffed under the "consent" umbrella is the hill you're willing to die on, then that's simply the hill you will die on, because it does not track and we've established that a logically equivalent claim is actually not problematic.>>24892831See >>24891746Consent is irrelevant when the being does not exist and ethical analysis is incomplete when relying on mere harm reduction. You've got nothing but a sentiment and a broken apart vehicle you thought could carry it. I recommend you re-think.
It is very very simple>if you can avoid inflicting suffering or creating the conditions for suffering, you should.>the unborn do not suffer at all>the born do suffer to some degreeI do not inflict suffering by refraining from procreation. I do inflict suffering by procreating. I ought not procreate.
>>24892840>>if you can avoid inflicting suffering or creating the conditions for suffering, you should.So never go to the gym? Or furthermore... never post things people disagree with? Damn, almost like this POV relies on not considering other perspectives while being self-refuting if sticking only to its own premise. I think they call it a contradiction.
>>24892837>Consent is irrelevant when the being does not existit's relevant. you can repeat it 1000 times, it won't change that fact. the choice of parents to make another being is relevant to the being that can't consent.
>>24892848Again, we established a logically equivalent claim is non-problematic. Ergo, logically, neither is this one. you can repeat it 1000 times, it won't change that fact.
>>24892848I sure hope you solved the consent problem 1,000,000 future entities might have with this being posted.
>>24892853>we established a logically equivalent claim is non-problematicwho's we?
>The entity does not exist when the decision is madeAnd? You simply repeat and explain the distinction without making a case for why it should be an exception. It meets all the criteria, aside from the arbitrary temporal criteria that you have pulled from thin air to avoid having to face the implications of it being a violent nonconsensual act.
>>24892840It is literally this simple and the "so don't go to the gym?" responses just show how much cognitive dissonance intelligent people experience when presented with something clearly correct that they cannot fit inside their worldview.
>>24892856of course we are talking about being relevant to the being forced to live, to eat, to suffer, to work, and to die, because the parents thought that cheetos taste good and the kid might want "some hecking cheetos, now go be a slave for 10 hours at school, kid." "thanks mom and dad, feels soo good being alive!"
>>24892858You and I.>>24892864It isn't an exception. See >>24892837>>24892872Oof, sounds like you didn't solve the consent problem at all. How come you didn't solve such a massive ethical burden before posting? I thought it's like an ethical concern or something. And yet you just straight up violate consent of a MILLION non-yet-existent entities?
>>24892897I think the parents who create the beings are relevant here, but anyway, you have nothing to say and go round and round talking irrelevant nonsense.
>>24892897True enough, you are so confused about the relationship between the temporal logistics and the ethical logistics that you can't even get to the point where you have to think of a reason for the exception. Think about it long-term: no action effects the present, action can only effect the future. The future is theoretical and doesn't actually 'exist'. Mull these facts over.
>>24892913I think so too. Shame that before we got to discuss this you had died on the hill of this being somehow tied to consent.>>24892924Temporal logistics lol. Consent exists in time, like it or not. If you cannot treat it like that, die on that hill. No objections from my side.
>>24892945>Shame that before we got to discuss this you had died on the hill of this being somehow tied to consent.you attacked the idea. I only defended. so far you aren't convincing nobody that the inability of consent isn't an issue
>>24892953>you attacked the idea [I think the parents who create the beings are relevant]False. See >>24891881.>you aren't convincing nobody that the inability of consent isn't an issueNobody except those who can tell logical equivalence >>24892816You chose to die on this hill and all you have to show for it is "but this MUST be a problem, otherwise I'm wrong".
>>24892945>Consent exists in timeAll social/ethical concepts have to be and are automatically navigated within the human ability to conceptualise an abstract 'future' then consider the implications of the present on that future. Do you on the 21st of November 2025 exist? No. Yet you could perform an action that would only affect you on that date. The same would be true if you didn't exist right now. The only relevant factor is whether someone will exist in the future. You simply have no given this any serious thought and fail to understand basic concepts like consent. Resign again
>>24892960>You chose to die on this hill and all you have to show for it is "but this MUST be a problem, otherwise I'm wrong".I choose to die on the hill of you repeating the claim that impossibility of consent (of a being - when it comes to antinatalism) isn't an issue when it clearly is and you keep saying this without anything to back it up?
Isn't it kind of stupid not to take into account that if your child could consent to being born it could have said no? Because once it's here and it says "I didn't ask to be born" you just go "Well, I assumed that you would, my bad." So why assume that, when no one is hurt by not being born? When no one is asking you to be born, the need only comes from you. That's just a selfish decision that you made to please yourself. I guess the argument against this is that majority of people choose to also have children, so that means they're ultimately okay with the lack of consent. But that doesn't make it any less morally questionable. Or just saying that since there is no one to consent before creation, that basically gives you a moral freebie, but that doesn't sound right to me either. I'd probably understand someone who just doesn't give a shit and doesn't believe in morality. But then why not just say that instead of trying to justify it?
>>24892682I think, the way antinatalist sees the world would make you responsible for the mugging. Since procreation is what allows for this scenario to take place. In a way a natalist is responsible for everything bad in the world, just by keeping it going. Just by convincing other people to be natalists. Doesn't even have to be your child that gets mugged. Or your child could be the mugger.
>>24881568I keep seeing this post on the catalog but never click on it. QRD? Why is this fag spamming this?
>>24893207It's either a schizo obsessed with antinatalism or a schizo obsessed with making these threads so he can post the same ebin debunks. Either way, he should fuck off and stop killing threads for a topic that's been discussed to death
>>24891746All antinatalists ever do ITTs is state a tautology and demand you: 1) accept the importance they place on it and, 2) adhere to their monopoly on its interpretation. It's the same thing over and over and over. The core of antinatalism is a bunch of ideologically possessed depressives engaging in masturbatory pity parties to service the narcissistic belief that they have discovered a hard truth regular people cannot accept and are thereby in a special position to make laughably pretentious pronouncements about existence.
>>24893207>Why is this fag spamming this?His diseased brain is trying to spread the mind virus of antinatalism and infect others
>>24893207There are 2 or 3 OPs who continuously post these threads despite the fact they've been so thoroughly BTFO that fellow travelling fags like this retard (>>24893219) are reduced to paranoia and cope about false flags, lol.
>>24889231Non-existent beings cannot be deprived of anything (because there is nothing there to experience deprivation).
The problem with antinatalism is that it does not go far enough and advocate for the destruction of the world through violent means because antinatalists are a bunch of pathetic weaklings.
>>24881606Spinoza was a worthless retard and everyone who reads his retarded ramblings should be gelded but, crucially, not killed.
>>24883888True, but they can become very influential and lead a murderous life, further the pain and suffering in this world, which is the only thing that enlightens people and is also the only constant, so increasing it is relatively easy. For example, you can mistreat some minority which can foster hatred and resentment in their pathetic hearts and cause them to become insane leftist activists or academics which will gurther cause more torment for right wingers and white people. Essentially, it is much better yo be alive and maximize one's karmic output so that Samsara can effectively eat itself better.
>>24894920It depends, some antinatalists are jaded enough to commit mass shootings.
>>24882664Because they (one guy) can't. The one autist who copy-pastes his debunked ad-hom study has made this thread like 50 times over the last year. You can see the same posts in it every time if you look through the archives.
>>24894920This logic is like saying vegans should advocate for the genocide of all animals. Non-birth is not murder.
i can't think of a single reason why anti-natalism shouldn't be physically applied to the people of impoverished third world countries>indonesia has 286 million people>sudan has 52 million people>india has approximately half of all the world's newborn babiesseriously, just extrapolate the population trends over the next 50 years and look me dead in the eye and tell me that it's a bad idea
>>24897464well, /lit/?
>>24881568>if you accept the premisesThat's most arguments. Getting the logical structure of the argument right is easy, the premises are what people argue about.
>>24883382If you kill yourself that act could also convince others.
>>24895876>debunked The guy who said he debunked it by linking his Reddit posts (lol) got destroyed--he was caught making shit up and not even knowing how the study was conducted, lol. >ad-homYou guys are such crybabies, lol.
>>24897464Too racist to be approved
>>24897464Too based to be approved
>>24892967Conceptualise away. Doesn't mean you get to disregard time, as you currently do in a desperate attempt to shoehorn your concern under the "consent" umbrella.>The only relevant factor is whether someone will exist in the future.False. You simply have no given this any serious thought and fail to understand basic concepts like consent. Resign again.>>24893753Pretty much. If a bunch of teenagers judging existence as such wasn't absurd enough, they try to do so through the most fragile and arbitrary methods. Anti-natalism really is a rare kind of filter that catches people with low IQ and EQ at once.
>>24899275>they try to do so through the most fragile and arbitrary methods.>PLEASE DON'T WRITE DOWN THE PROS AND CONS OF LIFE....... YOU JUST DON'T GET IT OKAY....... WE NEED TO SUFFER FOR REASONS.... IT'S NOT ACTUALLY SUFFERING...... AND SUFFERING IS ACTUALLY GOOD....... PLEASE STOP THIS IS A FRAGILE METHOD AAAAA MEANING AND GOD.......AND THE HUMAN MISSION ON EARTH...... WE NEED THE ALZHEIMER
>>24899356Nobody itt wrote a list.
>>24899356Actually sweetie we need to conquer the space so we can larp Warhammer 40K wouldn't that be epic bacon awesome sauce?
>>24897464This is the ultimate problem with anti-natalism. You can question its starting axioms, point out the incoherence of suggesting a non-existent person has a preference for avoiding harm but not a preference for pursuing pleasure, or even pathologize antinatalists for their obvious mental problems. The most damning point against them, however, is that their ideas have only gained traction among people who already have low birthrates (namely whites and Ashkenazi Jews), while mass-reproducing thirdies are too bound by religion and family pressure to ever listen to any of these philosophers. Even if Benatar's antinatalism gained immense traction among its Anglophone audience, all it would amount to is a decrease in the populations of those already having less kids and a rise of those civilizations that churn out kids like clockwork.
>>24899429Culture is a factor but antinatalism will also fail on a genetic level. At some point you're just left with people who really really want children or who really hate condoms.
>>24899429>their ideas have only gained traction Lol, no they haven't. People don't have kids because the cost of living is crazy and women are getting degrees and career jockeying when they're at their most fertile. "Extended adolescence" too--there's a maturity gap between Gen X/Gen z and Boomers/Millenials. If homes were affordable and the value of labour higher there would be a baby boom but instead the West pumps in immigrants making housing more expensive and devaluing certain jobs.
>>24899227>he was caught making shit up and not even knowing how the study was conducted, lol.You mean how the participants were ESLs bought from some wholesale survey company with no idea what antinatalism was? Did you prove that false?>You guys are such crybabies, lol.Because you got called out by the truth?
>>24900018>You mean how the participants were ESLsThat's just untrue. One of the studies even points out, as a potential weak point, that their population sample over represents college educated people. >bought from some wholesale survey company Why are you pretending there wasn't any screening and acting like there was only a single study that replicated the results? You know being paid to participate in studies is common, right? Are you the same person who said the people participated multiple times because you either didn't understand each study involved follow ups (i.e. not only taking as random a sample as was possible but also measuring the same population more than once in service of screening) or you were just making shit up? Lol. >no idea what antinatalism wasMore proof you're either too dumb to understand the studies or you're flat out lying. The methodology doesn't aim to define specific individuals as antinatalist because what was being measured is adherence to a cluster of antinatalist beliefs and psychological traits within randomly sampled populations. The measurements showed that positive correlation exists between alignment with antinatalism and likelihood of personality disorder/mental illness. As far as the aforementioned belief cluster David Benatar himself served as an advisor. >Because you got called out by the truth?No, you're crybabies because you moan about informal fallacies as a way to deflect from reality. You also maintain a ridiculous pretense that you're rationally motivated while getting emotional over the results of multiple scientific studies you're either too dumb to understand or too ideologically possessed to accept, lol.
You guys can clearly enjoy your lifes since you are already here. Just don't gamble with other peoples life. It's that simple. The assumetry holds.And the appeal to suicide is in my opinion supportive of anti-natalism, as the refusal to leave is incredibly hard, as its hurts people who love, you are hard wired agaisnt it and its simply a painful thing to actual go through.And would you say that to your own children? "Well, if you don't like it, kill yourself!"Or even, are you depriving of pleasure the 10 kids you guys dont have? Of course not. Who cries at night for not having as much kids as humanly possible? Cause we know we are not depriving anyone of pleasure. I "lived" just fine the billion years until I was born.Sure, life might have more pleasure than pain even, but that still makes it unethical, as you have no ideia if your kids will feel the same. The only things that are certain in life is pain and death, we all know this, if there is also alot of pleasure within life, its a guess, a gamble. How many chambers does a revolver need to have for you to comfortably shoot at your children? But most people arent even totally aware of true ethical views, as im sure most natalists here are meat eaters, so why tf should I debate ethics with people who dont give a fuck about one of the most present forms of suffering in our society?I think humanity, on its own, should realize that anti natalism is the most ethical thing to do, and we shpuld go extinct on our own accord, with dignity. Humanity will most likely go extinct anyways, better for us yo go on our pwn way than die due whatever terrible cause it might be.But yeah, bottom line, even in a utopia, anti natalism is the ethical position. But if you guys dont care about consent and suffering no point. Anti natalism is born out of love and empathy for the whole of humanity. A radical form of empathy. A radical respect for consent. If you guys dont have such things its impossible to argue for anti natalism.Honestly I've come to lose the will to car about such things, most people don't care and even if they suffer they will be oblivious to it and repeat the cycle. So there is not much point.
If you are dead (non-existence), you miss out on the "good" of pleasure, but that is "not bad" because you don't exist to care. However, you avoid the "bad" of pain, which is distinctly "good". Therefore death is preferable to life and we should all kill ourselves
>>24900258in what dimension are the "good of pleasure" and the "bad of pain" even remotely measurable in relation to each other? why is avoiding pain more desirable than experiencing pleasure?this entire literally brain-damaged belief stands on this shaky foundation
>>24900333No, even if life was full of pleasure and an utopia, anti natalism is still the ethical position as you cant be sure your descendants will feel the same way or share your disposition to life. But in the real world the hedonistic balance tips in favour of suffering, as I belief the assymetry is true.But if you are ok with telling your children "If you dont like it kill yourself!", you do you. Maybe if there was free acess to euthanasia I wouldnt be arguing in favour of antinatalism, but as it stands suicide is very hard thing to go through.Dont gamble with other people lifes, even of you are content with yours.
>>24883332>>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)To be fair one could be both an anti-natalist and some flavor of religious, in which case the argument would be suicide leads to eternal suffering, which would be entirely counterproductive.
>>24889231I reckon procreating too much does that too, look at sub-Saharan Africa or urban India.
>>24883367This. In no way does reproduction help the children, as they are not existent to care. It all boils down to selfishness from the parents due social and biological motives.>>24889231How many rainbows and pizzas do you think we need to outweight the wars, plagues, slavery and so on?
>>24899429>while mass-reproducing thirdies are too bound by religion and family pressure to ever listen to any of these philosophers.This proves that people make children for egoistic reasons. People who don't have much in their lives make many children to cope and to have someone to exert power over and the people who already have something else to cope with their existence like first worlders don't make many kids because they become a burden on their liveshow is this a problem for antinatalism? the problem is natalists
>>24881568Wait until you discover that morality and the perception of suffering are subjective things
>>24901046useless piece of information. suffering is suffering
>>24901091https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5XqsQxaz57A
>>24901091That full-stop should have been a colon.
>>24901163SOVL
>erm you have to prevent sufferingno
>>24882050Npc
>>24881568bro, just relax, like, life is good, chill out and enjoy
>>24881956I'm genuinely happy and enjoy spending time with my parents. I believe I can recreate this experience for my child. You only perceive this line of thinking as cope because you are miserable and bitter. So who is really coping?
>>24882667>life was created to sufferPretty sure the function of suffering is to encourage the individual to avoid the cause of the suffering, but the way some people act does challenge this hypothesis.
>>24902191Anti-natalism is a cope mentally ill midwits adopt because they'd rather mentally masturbate while wallowing in self-pity than do anything that could potentially confirm they're just retarded losers with no one to blame but themselves.
>>24900444>To be fair this overly specific example that in no way defines the vast majority of antinatalists...Retard.
>>24895883No? I am saying that the ethical thing to do is clearly to kill as many people as possible or cause immense suffering.
NEVER accept j*wish premises
>>24881568it falls apart when if you do not accept the notion that suffering is inherently bad. you can overcome suffering through acts of will which make you feel alive and great, and sometimes you will step on others' toes to do so but that's inherent in a social world. at the extreme end, war is an example of overcoming obscene suffering, pain and exhaustion where the only escape is literally killing other people. but when forced into that situation you must exert your will, overcome and kill or else be killed yourself. and this is also true in everyday life, one must overcome inconveniences, pain, victimizing others etc to essentially be in the world every day. the only reason to think this is a categorically "bad" way to exist is if you enter with the preconceived notion that humans are apart from nature and that we shouldn't act in accordance to our biological impulses.
There are multiple scientific studies that found those professing antinatalist beliefs are highly likely to have personality disorders and mental illnesses.
>>24881568Let me ask you, and the other antinatalists/negative utilitarians ITT, something. Imagine a being that, after being created, experiences a trillion years of pure bliss in heaven, but at one point stubs their toe and it hurts a bit. Would bringing this being into existence be morally endorsible? Why or why not? What level of pleasure is needed to balance out and make morally acceptable a given quantity of pain? Surely there must be some preponderance of pleasure over pain at which a tradeoff is permissible.
>>24903601>Imagine a being that, after being created, experiences a trillion years of pure bliss in heaven, but at one point stubs their toe and it hurts a bit. Would bringing this being into existence be morally endorsible?Yes. So would not bringing the being into existence. What does this thought experiment have to do with procreation?t. non-utilitarian AN
>>24903790You don't know what life of 99% bliss has to do with the AN argument about misery? What do you think is happening itt?
>>24903584So?
>>24903830So get checked out.
>>24881568Yeah I could see how you might come to that conclusion if you look like this
>>24903834For what? To become an NPC like you?
>>24903790>What does this thought experiment have to do with procreation?It has to do with the standard against which you judge procreation. It's an arbitrary one. That suffering is bad is one of the millions of facts to consider. That bliss is good is another among those millions. In prioritizing lack of suffering over existence of bliss you're being unethical. Ergo, anti-natalism is unethical to the degree to which you can reasonably presume that a being will experience joy over suffering. Which ngl seems to be quite a good ration. I don't remember the last time I've seen my friends in genuine pain but I do remember genuine ecstasy.
>>24903846>ethics built around minimizing suffering>would rather suffer a sickness than be normalI can see what the studies were talking about.
>>24903830>So?That means it's what's known as a "you problem" and you should probably either kill yourself or stop acting like a bitch.
>>24882667>t. Archon of the Demiurge
>>24903841That's just some guy who interviewed him. Benatar is both a highly neurotic wimp and someone who knows better than to interact with the retards who take him seriously--he hides from the public. I'm going to find the pasta/pic of the interview where he has a nervous breakdown in the middle of a public park.
>>24903841>>24903870>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.
>>24883253>>24883255>>24883258Never stop posting these.
>>24886137If you have the genetic predisposition to Schizophrenia, weed will be more than sufficient
>>24903841Are there any good looking antinatalists out there?
>>24889246You
>>24892520Why does existence make antinalists seethe?
>>24903577suffering not being inherently bad doesn't make antinatalism fall apart. Pleasure and Pain, Good and Bad are placeholders for subjective value. The argument of antinatalism can work without placing some deeper meaning on suffering but a consequence of existence itself. Everything is nature. being apart or one with nature doesn't really mean anything. I think you on the other hand place an inherent value on biological impulses. They don't mean anything
>>24903892>Why does existence make antinalists seethe?Vulnerable narcissism confronted with the fact they're losers. Instead of accepting reality they become ideologically possessed by something that tells them everyone should be as miserable as they are and they're actually enlightened for proselytizing such. It's the definition of cope.
>>24900428It costs you nothing to kill yourself. What are you going on about?
>>24897464Sounds like a (you) problem. Who's stopping white people from having kids>inb4 muh Jews Mohammed Bin Suparman is over there fathering 12 kids with his wife Aisha and raising them on the meagre earnings of an oil palm plantation worker
>>24903962They only have 2 avenues of argument ITTs. The first is "BAD STUFF HAPPENS SO IF YOU'RE NOT BORN: NOT BAD" and the second boils down to "FUCK YOU MOM! I NEVER ASKED TO BE BORN!", lol. It's so simple to see through that one needs to reference mental illness in order to understand why they can't reason their way out of it or even understand arguments from others that reject their bullshit.
>>24903942>Vulnerable narcissism confronted with the fact they're losers.but people who have kids are not winning anything. They're not winners. This is like saying "Look dude I'm participating in the most basic, primal urge, I'm such a winner."who is the one coping? You are. the apologist of endless suffering.
>>24881568It's a philosophy of self pity but not enough self pity to be Luciferian ( in the Paradife Loft sense)
>>24903984>but people who have kids are not winning anythingWho said anything about "winning anything", retard? The way you people attempt to frame conversations is reflective of your mental illness and propensity toward personality disorder. As far as the ideology you vomit goes everything you say is predictable and boring--just projection whenever you're confronted by the fact you're not that smart and/or a retreat back to the same basic tautology like a cult member chanting a thought terminating cliche mantra.>"Look dude I'm participating in the most basic, primal urge, I'm such a winner."Yes, anon. Everyone enjoying sexual relationships is just giving into a "primal urge" and the fact you can't have sex actually makes you special and above those who do. That isn't shallow and reductive in service of justifying your mentally ill worldview at all.>who is the one coping? You are"No you" says the depressed faggot whose entire worldview is based on the fact he's a depressed faggot and doesn't want to acknowledge it's his own fault he continues to be a depressed faggot, lol.>the apologist of endless suffering.You're a whiny little bitch boy who is incapable of outgrowing teenage angst, lol.
>>24903969>Who's stopping white people from having kidsit's not a white people problem, it's a problem of nature. thinkers all the way back as far as ancient greece took note of the difference in birth rates between people living in cities and people living in the countryside. keeping that in mind, if you look at current birth rates and the near future projections, just about every single nation in the world outside of sub-saharan africa is going to have below displacement level birth rates within the next 15 yearsit's not just a white people problem, there's something larger at play
i'd say anti-natalism is good, since anybody miserable and pathetic enough to become an anti-natalist won't pass on their genes. we people who can appreciate human connection, art, philosophy or whatever else won't miss the losers who reduce the human experience to a binary of pain and pleasure.
>>24905326enjoy your garbage rivers, pollution and poverty
>>24905351Oh no 3 bad things, better to never have been!!!!
>>24905351not a jeet. and unless you are one yourself get off the internet i bet you've never actually seen a garbage river
>>24901657NPCs can't delete themselves. Go ahead and prove you aren't one.
>>24903823Correct. You seem to be mistaken that your thought experiment illuminates anything relating to reality. If procreation created a person who would experience two concrete and supernaturally guaranteed events: a trillion years of bliss, and a stubbing of the toe, then it would be relevant. As it is, people experience a largely random amount of randomly pleasurable or torturous events. There is no way to supernaturally catalogue the events that will happen to someone in the future then evaluate them before making the decision, which is the basis of your thought experiment. If there was, then the AN question would be entirely different. Are you willing to risk torturing an innocent person? Is the real question. (Read 'risk'. I'm not implying that the average person, or me, experiences a torturous life or prolonged torture).
>>24906131Antinatalists can't predict the future and try to shift the onus of their conclusion unto others by demanding such from them. The reality is you're making a prescriptive conclusion and it is thereby up to you to prove that no life is worth living. The fact is you can't, such a quantitative argument is impossible, so the ideology you regurgitate is DOA. Even Benatar, when pressed, admits asymmetry is only "vaguely true" yet you retards frame every debate as if it's unassailable. This is why people call you out for being too ideologically possessed to know you're arguing in bad faith, explain in every thread how that makes you retarded, and tell you to kill yourselves. The only thing you guys are right about is that the world would probably be better if you weren't around.
>>24881568Thank you OP for helping me realize that antinatalism is a maladaptive cope for the loss of infantile omnipotence.
>>24881669proof?
>>24906540>up to you to prove that no life is worth livingThat is objectively not the claim of AN nor do I believe it even slightly...>The only thing you guys are right about is that the world would probably be better if you weren't around.See above. You have no relevant point to make which is why you all resort to tantrum name calling and ad hominem. Address the central point of my post or go back to reading slop.
>>24906892>That is objectively not the claim of ANYeah it is. >You have no relevant point to makeThat's what you filtered retards always come back with when you're BTFO and have no response. I accept your concession.
>>24906919No. The claim of AN is that procreation is unethical. You are mistaking the fact that many AN's justify the position by claiming that "life isn't worth living" with the claim of AN itself. I am an AN who does not agree with the value judgement that "life isn't worth living". That is not a contradiction with the claim that creating life is unethical. What is confusing you about these facts?
Pro-natalist are IMMORAL.
>>24907161NTA but I suppose it's confusing that something good is unethical to make happen.
This retarded thread has been going on for years and you still unironically repeat the same points over and over.
Thought this was a picture of The Tallest Man On Earth album
>>24907174Rejecting that "life isn't worth living" doesn't mean that I think it's "good". If I had to describe "life" as a Whole I would say it is "not good" because of the extreme risk that it imposes on the created life. If I had to describe the average or majority Quality of life in a vacuum I would describe it as "good". If we could see the future and see whether our unborn children might have this average life or an unlucky torturous life Beforehand, then the quality of one or many individual's life would be relevant before it has actually happened. In real life these accounts are not useful because they are projected averages of the future. On the other hand, for a Utilitarian, the average IS useful because they would may willing to deliberately subject others to torture (or the Chance of torture) for a greater good. Most people, without knowing it, will cite this argument when confronted with these kinds of facts. By saying "but most people love their lives so it's fine", they acknowledge the rare torture but dismiss it as being necessary for the greater good. I call this the Mad Scientist Argument, where a scientist inflicts unspeakable horror on innocent beings to develop medicines that will lead to a greater good. The average Natalist argument is no different - and completely justifiable and coherent as Mad Scientist Argument. Utility is a genuine method for results and it works as intended with procreation: few suffer horrendously so many can prosper sublimely. It is an argument that you can own with your head held high, there is no need to pretend otherwise and reject it. Subjective moral judgements are one thing, but refusing to recognise the principles involved with a decision are another. You can't eat your cake and have it too.
>>24907286>it is "not good" because of the extreme risk that it imposes on the created life.If life weren't good then a risk to it couldn't be considered negative. Believe it or not, the value behind life (whichever way a person happens to define it) is a necessary premise to most ethical judgements we make as a matter of course. You can, of course, abandon this premise theoretically, but then the assertion that death, hunger, abandonment, injury etc. are bad lose their essential grounding, since they are all just instances of decrease in the sum of one's life as a phenomenon.>they acknowledge the rare torture but dismiss it as being necessary for the greater goodI don't think they are implying a "greater" good. They are implying the good itself - life, while acknowledging that there are marginal cases that they cannot account for, as is the case for any concept or proposition. I've seen natalists make collectivist arguments, but what you're describing is entirely conceivable on an individual level.>You can't eat your cake and have it too.That's what I think is happening when you call a reduction in life (death, injury, suffering...) bad while not committing to calling life good.
>>24881568One visit to r/antinatalism will tell you all you need to know about these people. A bunch of depressed dysgenic freaks. No point debating them too, logic goes past their ego and what's the point if they are gonna eliminate their own bloodline anyway
>>24907460You're as foolish as them if you think that a visit to the subreddit tells you all you need to know about people with a certain philosophical position. The people there are 80iq scum.>>24907305>I don't think they are implying a "greater" good.They would certainly not frame their argument as referencing a greater good, but it remains what they are doing.> They are implying the good itself - life,So this is where it gets slightly technical which makes it easy to make simple logistic errors. You can use "life" to refer to one individual's experience; a group of individual's experiences; or the concept of experience. To say that "life is good" doesn't usually imply that all three are "good" since no serious person would say that everyone's individual experience was/is/will be inherently "good". You can say that the latter two are good without saying that the first is good, and vice versa - which is my position.I think that MY life is good; I think that the majority of people have good lives; and I think that the concept of life is good. This doesn't answer the very specific question of "is it good to create a life", however. "It is unethical that my life was created" and "my life is good and I am glad it was created" are not contraditory positions philosophically, but just aesthetically contraditory in a particularly vulgar way. "I am glad it was created" is a position I hold only considering my circumstance - not by princible. By this I mean: if I were to gamble my life savings away and win, I may say that "I am glad I gambled my life savings" - but that doesn't mean I would condone the gamble or encourage others to gamble. This is an analogy to illustrate the princible I am using, I am NOT comparing the situations to eachother.>while acknowledging that there are marginal cases that they cannot account for,You can phrase it in this way, but it doesn't have any content when we're talking about princibles and ethics. What exactly are you saying? Life is a set that contains all experience. a) Everything in the set is good, and the set itself good. b) There are good and bad things in the set, and the set itself is good. c) There are good and bad things in the set, and the set itself is bad. d) Everything in the set is bad, and the set itself is bad. I fall into c. Which variation do you (or Natalists in general) fall into? I would guess b, which leads to the Mad Scientist argument where the set is perpetuauted not because of, but despite the bad, so that the set itself can be perpetuauted. It is a completely coherent ethical position. Please leave rhetoric at the door and address the central points this time. If you reject that b amounts to a "greater good" argument then address directly why.
>>24907460They are depressed because the see the truth clearly.
>>24907581>>I don't think they are implying a "greater" good.>They would certainly not frame their argument as referencing a greater good, but it remains what they are doing.Not as far as I can tell.>I think that the concept of life is good. This doesn't answer the very specific question of "is it good to create a life", however.It doesn't technically address the very specific question, but the inference is much less problematic than >>24907174>I may say that "I am glad I gambled my life savings" - but that doesn't mean I would condone the gamble or encourage others to gambleIf your point hinges on technical rigor then we need to maintain it throughout. You aren't glad you gambled your life savings, else you'd be equally glad gambling no matter the outcome. You are glad your wealth increased. There is at no point the tension we identified in >>24907174 where the same thing is pronounced good and undesirable to make happen.>Life is a set that contains all experience.I'm not sure I am fully on board with this, but to entertain your well-posed question, I would fall into b. >I would guess b, which leads to the Mad Scientist argument where the set is perpetuauted not because of, but despite the badSee, you again leap from the individual to a collective level to make the Mad Scientist argument work. I'm not making that argument. An individual's life (here viewed as a set) is good despite containing bad events. The logic is fully sound and you even concede to it when you declare your life good, which I'm sure includes bad events.The gap between "is it good" and "should it be done" only exists in very specific ethical models and circumstances. But I will grant to you that it does exist. That this gap can accommodate a total inversion, where one would be a yes and the other would be a no, is seemingly unjustifiable.
>>24907161>No. Yes.>You are mistaking the fact that many AN's justify the position by claiming that "life isn't worth living"You're splitting hairs. >I am an AN who does not agree with the value judgement that "life isn't worth living". No one cares. >That is not a contradiction with the claim that creating life is unethicalYou don't have a valid foundation for the beliefs you parrot. >What is confusing you about these facts?It's quite clear you avoided addressing everything in >>24906540 in order to focus in on what you took to be an error. What's confusing is whether you did it on purpose or you're simply a retard. I think it's the latter.
>>24907286>If I had to describe "life" as a Whole I would say it is "not good"Therefore it's "not worth living", retard. Didn't read the rest of your sperg.
>>24907746Conceive of a holiday resort that you would not recommend to someone, but isn't so bad that you would leave early without a refund. Retard, stick to netflix.>>24907739>You're splitting hairs.No response necessary. >>24907615Thank you for the thoughtful response.>You aren't glad you gambled your life savings, else you'd be equally glad gambling no matter the outcome. You are glad your wealth increased. Not quite; your wealth increasing isn't an action you performed but the result of an action - the gamble is the action you performed. You can be pleased with the result, of course, but if we're talking about being glad of decisions that you've made in the past, then it would be true to say "I am glad that I gambled my life savings" That isn't to say that I would be "glad that I gamble", which would be an entirely different statement. I would only be glad of the gamble I made because I happened to win it.As an analogy: I like hiking and am both glad that I hike and that I have went on each of my individual hikes. But if I cancelled my hike one afternoon and then learnt that there had been a fatal wildfire in the area I would have been at that time, I would be able to accurately say that "I'm glad I didn't go on that hike." It wouldn't be a comment on the quality of hiking, but on the specific circumstances that happened to befall me because of me going/not going on that particular hike. I could also say that "I'm glad I didn't burn to death.", but that wasn't a decision on the table for me so it's not something I can regret or condone as an Action, only as a result.>See, you again leap from the individual to a collective level to make the Mad Scientist argument work. I'm not making that argument. An individual's life (here viewed as a set) is good despite containing bad events. The logic is fully sound and you even concede to it when you declare your life good, which I'm sure includes bad events.So I'm not sure technically where your objection is with my claim that B leads to the set being perpetuated despite the bad inside it, and that this is the principle of the Mad Scientist who does good by creating both bad and good. I am not implying any moral judgement when I make that claim, only trying to accurately describe the nature of the position. Just stating that "An individual's life (here viewed as a set) is good despite containing bad events." doesn't illuminate the principle you're using when you hold that position. Please explain what principle you are using.The logic is indeed fully sound and the Natalist argument can be made soundly and morally coherently; but identifying the nature of the ethical argument involved is another thing. Where does the bad end up in your framework? You can't just negate it by stating that life is "good despite the bad". I am not seeking to argue an ethical value judgement here, also.
>>24881568AFTER SEEING THIS THREAD A BAZILLION TIMES YOU START WISHING LIL BRO WOULD JUST HANG IT UP INSTEAD OF FILLING THIS BOARD WITH HIS NEUROTIC ATTENTION-SEEKING LIMPWRISTERY. ALAS!
>>24894923He makes everyone seethe, antinatalists most of all
>>24881568one mushroom trip is enough to refute whatever autistic and cold logical conclusions the author reachedif life needs suffering and hardship in exchange for a fleeting moment of beauty, extasy, happiness, then so be itand it's not all THAT bad if you live in a moderatly developed world. And if you are born as some despicable pajeet or african low IQ monkey you aren't even conscious anyway so you won't care about suffering in a deep way that causes mental torment
>>24883253wow again what a shock that the same thread gets the same reply every time that epically pwns the OP wow so crazy
>>24881568TRVKE
>>24907958>Conceive of a holiday resort that you would not recommend to someone, but isn't so bad that you would leave earlyYou're parroting Benatar's nonsense about not walking out of a performance you don't like. It's a bad analogy because it fails to service the gravity of the conclusion being forwarded and the trivialization of the subject matter is an unintentional self-own. >No response necessaryYeah, you retards have trouble responding when the bullshit your regurgitate is called out by people who aren't ideologically possessed by it.
>>24907603More likely their perception of reality is distorted because they are too depressed and bored. Which is probably why they support illogical philosophical positions. I'd put all anti-natalists in work camp gulags. A single hard day's labour shall wash this bs off them.
>>24907603Having been a caretaker for a depressed person I can tell you first hand how retarded depression can make a person. They assume the worst every possible outcome time as a given for every single situation which is how many of the more intelligent depressives end up starving themselves to death if they don't try to kill themselves first because of the terror of their imaginary doom
>>24908858Sorry, *worst possible outcome as a given every time*
>>24908858A big part of being an antinatalist is continuously entertaining the notion that you're more enlightened than everyone else and have special insights into reality. They're mentally ill midwits with personality disorders too pathetic/dumb to figure their way out of an ideology trap.
>>24908621You don't understand what an analogy is.
>>24909095You just got caught parroting Benatar and not being able to respond to direct criticism of his argument, lol.
Say what you want, but Benatar is right about procreation.Having kids is immoral. I'll never have children and will probably commit suicide.I just need to find a good way to do it that is reliable and painless and is not too much of an eyesore for others.
>>24909898Philosophy is not for everyone, just enjoy your netflix man
>>24909945>Philosophy is not for everyoneI'm glad you can admit it. The next step is evaluating why you're parroting Benatard as if his work consists of thought terminating cliches and avoid criticism while LARPing the opposite. >just enjoy your netflix manWhat's good?
>>24910311Never read Benetar. I came up with that analogy because I have basic critical thinking skills, so I can identify that something can be good enough to continue but bad enough to not do again. Address the central point without retard-rhetoric if you have a brain, sweetie.
>>24910964>I came up with that analogyNo you didn't and it's both pathetic and weird of you to hold fast to such an obvious lie, retard.
>>24911032I don't know what you want me to say. I'm not claiming that I was the first to come up with the analogy, just that I independently came up with it. It's nice not being retarded.
>>24881568This is just how it feels if you're a coward.If you had a mustard seed's worth of courage, it would change your entire perspective. This book and anti-natalist thought in general is nothing but a painting made by a color-blind painter.
>>24911451you don't need courage to ejaculate. any retard does it all the time. look around you
>>24903584What's inherently bad about a mental illness though? If suddenly everyone in the world developed schizo tendencies not having them would make you seem mentally ill.
>>24911944That might be true for some deviations from the current norm but a society of actual schizos would just implode.
>>24909903>I'll never have childrenYou will. The human reproductive drive is too strong>and will probably commit suicide.You won't. The human survival instinct is too strong
>>24881568antinatalism is just something you fall for if you are a modern person that can't survive the unnatural humiliation ritual of modernity. Antinatalism is based purely on presupposition that the values you have put on things is right
>>24909903it's funny how every antinatalist is suicidal. I'm sure that doesn't factor in at all
>>24912041I like how Inmendham approaches it. You killed yourself? Great, you just gave up on fighting consciousness. Someone else will be born in the same circumstances and feel exactly like you. You didn't win shit.
>>24907958Hi, I didn't get back to it until now. >"I'm glad I didn't go on that [dangerous] hike.">I would only be glad of the gamble I made because I happened to win it.Agreed. And I wouldn't be objecting in regular speech, but since we're trying to be extra precise here, I do think both statements are slightly misleading in making it seem like a decision and an outcome of a decision are a single unit towards which I take a stance... I can lament my gambling relapse despite being ecstatic about winning. But anyway, it doesn't seem to matter right now, so let's cross that bridge when we come to it.>Just stating that "An individual's life (here viewed as a set) is good despite containing bad events." doesn't illuminate the principle you're using when you hold that position. Please explain what principle you are using.I'm not presenting a novel principle, I'm rather trying to apply the Mad Scientist scheme to a single life instead to a group of lives. I completely see how selecting a sub-set of the population for torture experiments is a Mad Scientist thing to do. The good majority doesn't necessarily justify the torturous sub-set existing. But a subset of experiences within a single life being torturous doesn't seem like a Mad Scientist situation at all - it is actually the situation we all find ourselves in. I will have negative experiences subset going forward in my set as will you, yet we both choose to go ahead with it. So we both individually either tacitly approve of Mad Scientists or the concept isn't currently complete enough to produce conclusions.
>>24912080He's still suicidal so his opinion is not valid
>>24883253Let's face it. It's likely your favorite philosopher or writer had a personality disorder, too.
>>24912106True
>antinatalists be like life is too spicy for me
>>24881568> if you accept the premisesThat's why you never accept the premises
>>24911246>I don't know what you want me to sayNothing. It has hilarious seeing you plagiarize something that is brought up in every single one of these threads, get stuck in a loop denying it, and refuse to interact with criticism of Benatar's point.>It's nice not being retarded.Someone must have told you that one too, lol.
>>24912090>a subset of experiences within a single life being torturous doesn't seem like a Mad Scientist situation at allI absolutely agree. But there ARE individual lives which are excessively torturous: extreme fringe cases where no one but the superstitious would be happy that the person had lived that life. This kind of tragedy can befall anyone through circumstances that are not possible to entirely safeguard. When reproducing, it could be said that you are entering someone into one of two experiences, the latter having a non-zero and unavoidable chance of being the experience.a) Your child lives a normal life. (vast majority)b) Your child lives a tragic life. (extreme fringe case)What's useful to ask is: Would you skip the chance part and just go straight to entering someone into a 100% chance of experience b? Would it be ethical to do so? If not, then why would it be ethical to do so if an element of chance is introduced? I don't see how torturing someone could be unethical, but pushing a button that has a 1/10,000,000 chance of torturing someone is ethical (when there is no agent to consider the nuance of risk/reward, like crossing a road with your child to go to school).Injecting 10,000,000 people each with a different solution, when you know that one solution will cause someone torture, because 'my experience and your experience with the syringe was positive' is the essence of the Mad Scientist principle - which is a healthy, effective, and logically sound principle. Just not ethical, to me. (Imagine 10,000,000 different scientists, all given a syringe, with one unknowingly having the bad syringe if the situation doesn't track for you. Each one injects happily and refuses responsibility or ethical knowledge if something bad happens...)
>>24911944>What's inherently bad about a mental illness though?
>>24881568Bruh, just read Nietzsche. This crap was busted years ago and people just cling and reinvented it. Do you really wanna accept le argument said "roll over and die lmao" as the final say? No, cause it's really gay.
>>24881568Any anti-natalist or non-existence worshipper alive long enough to formulate an opinion on this already violates their core philosophy and therefore invalidates it.Without being alive, you couldn't have even began to form an opinion on your current state, let alone put it into a physical book.And if your argument is staying alive for "spreading the word", at least have the decency to kill yourself immediately after publishing. I doubt the author did any such thing.You being alive and sentient enough to hate being so invalidates your hatred for your condition, which may reinforce it, but again, is invalidated. Quite the predicament.May I recommend a change of mind, or a displacement of it via a 9mm?
>>24912491He has a point that many of the problems just stem from society not accepting your views, I just don't think it works for every kind of mental illness.E.g. in a society of hardcore materialists you might be seen as insane if you think God can hear your prayers, but in a religious society it is normal and there are no real downsides. Or in a society that hates gays you are seen as mentally ill as a gay man and it sucks, but if people accept it, there are no big downsides.
>>24881568>That's an unnecessary imposition of sufferingAnd you'd rather be dead? Not existing? What defining search for purpose would you have then? Yet here you are, asking the very question enduring suffering rather than an heroing. The only way is up, living and growing to face the last breathe. If you came from nothing to be here in something, how much more is beyond this existence?
>>24881689>I won’t say I enjoy pain but it is the cost of the novelty of consciousnessTrue, we all have a mouth and must scream. We decided that we wanted to physically have access rather than not being able to scream. In turn we exposed ourselves that pleasure and pain may find us rather than feel nothing.
I'd just like antinatalists to stop pretending they come from a place of genuine empathy and concern for others. At best they're just a bit autistic and worship arguments/love how it feels to "be right", but usually it seems like it's just the result of them being caught in a miserable state of mind, projecting it outwards.
>>24913096Most philosophical premises are just an expression of people's emotions imo.
>>24892840>if you can avoid inflicting suffering or creating the conditions for suffering, you shouldThat implies that the highest good is to avoid inflicting suffering at all for any reason, rather than the pursuit of virtue, or maximizing total happiness, or fulfilling the categorical imperative, or any of the other goals most ethical systems actually have. Suffering sucks and should be minimized obviously but pretty much every major ethical system presupposes that there is some higher goal or pursuit that can justify the experience/existence of suffering. If you want to argue that point you're welcome to but that's a far higher rhetorical lift than you're making it out to be since you're basically arguing that the good things in life don't outweigh the bad which seems like an impossible position to prove in any practical manner.
>>24913096>oh you don't like suffering? who hurt you bro? xD ignore it like we "normal and adjusted individuals in society" do all the time xD>>24913128>the good things in life don't outweigh the bad which seems like an impossible position to prove in any practical manner.it's the easiest thing to prove in practice. if you ask people if they would take 24 hours of good and happy experience but then 24 hours of pain and misery, what do you think they will say? you know the answer. we feel the painful experience much worse than we feel happy about the most pleasing experiences.
>>24913181>we feel the painful experience much worse than we feel happy about the most pleasing experiences.Even if that's true (which I wouldn't take as a given, we have a natural tendency to fixate on bad and painful experiences which do tend to stick in our memory more but this isn't all consuming or else everyone would think their life sucks all the time, which we don't) you're again asserting that there is an equal amount of pain and suffering vs good and pleasing experiences in one's life. Why should it be a 50/50 split? Why shouldn't life be more like 60/40 or 70/30 good vs bad experiences?
>>24913591>you're again asserting that there is an equal amount of pain and suffering vs good and pleasing experiences in one's life. Why should it be a 50/50 split? Why shouldn't life be more like 60/40 or 70/30 good vs bad experiences?I never asserted that. you're attacking a point I never made.
>>24885052>>24884484A partially-annihilated America of 30 million (a new aristos who both experience and inflict the least suffering) is consistent with certain elements of, and potentially a great leap forward, in Neoreactionary thoughtUltra-Nietzscheanism
>>24882664bro we have so many fucking times but this autist just keeps posting for all the new fag normies that think this is all new. i'm tired.
>>24881568>I've been thinking about Benatar's arguments and honestly the logic is pretty airtight if you accept the premises.Did anyone ever say otherwise? If you take "Suffering is bad" as an axiom then antinatalism will likely be the logical endpoint.
>>24913010>He has a pointNo he doesn't and you're equally dumb.
>>24913181This is why I said it's autistic. Most people want to live. And according to antinatalism they're just retarded and enslaved by biology or whatever, and if only they would listen to your arguments they would agree that life is misery and better off not existing. It's so fucking vain, that you could decide and judge from your little human head based on nothing but little human logic that everything and everyone else should end.
You people look at suffering and go "welp, guess we should just stop existing then" like you've completely forgotten that pain IS the thing that makes life meaningful. Without pain there's no truth, only truth hurts, everything else is cope. Without pain there's no love, you ever actually love someone? It wounds you, it changes you. Without pain there's no depth, no growth, no actual experience of being human. You're basically Nietzsche's Last Man, so terrified of discomfort that you'd rather not exist at all than deal with the negativity that comes baked into consciousness. Pain and happiness are literally twins, you can't suppress one without killing the other which is why your "solution" isn't mercy, it's just choosing undead non-existence over the messy reality of being alive. You want everyone to take the ultimate analgesic instead of learning the art of suffering and that's the most life-denying cowardly position imaginable. Touch grass, embrace the pain, realize that a life optimized purely for comfort isn't human life at all.
>>24914179>Most people want to live. And according to antinatalism they're just retarded and enslaved by biology or whateverif no one existed there would be nobody who wants to live. why would you want to exist before you could have any wants or desires? it makes no sense. In that sense antinatalism is correct. to desire is to exist, and you can't desire to exist
>>24913792You really can't tell the difference between form and content can you? I am a very happy person, but I bet it's even nicer being 80iq - I hope you enjoy it.
>>24914198This assumes that pleasure is good
For how many times we have gone through this thread 90% of posters still think antinatalism is the belief that life is not worth living so anyone who believes it should die. That is not the argument. The argument is that new life is not worth CREATING. So many threads and posts never actually talking about antinatalism.
>>24916017>antinatalist makes distinction without a difference and is confused why everyone thinks he's retardedLol
>>24912486The simple thought experiment stands:10,000,000 syringes are given out, 1 of which will cause prolonged unspeakable suffering, the rest will cause prolonged health and prosperity. You have a random one of the syringes: do you inject a toddler with it? If yes, what about if 10 were tainted? or 1000? At which point would it become unethical?If no, then explore the obvious implications this has for reproduction.Reminder that this is a humanities board and thought experiments are a useful thing to engage with. If you find the thought experiment facile, then humour it and explain why it's not applicable.>You hate your life!!!!>You're depressed!!I am very happy and fulfilled, please try to stay on topic.
>>24881568>constant physical painthis is bullshit for most young people, but it adds up for old or sick people
>>24916751A lot of young people suffer from chronic pain. Either from injuries or just some fucked up random condition that manifested itself out of nowhere. Surprisingly pain of this kind can't be treated at all, just barely medicated. People like to think that doctors can solve everything today.
>>24916736>mentally ill retard with a personality disorder spergs about "injecting toddlers" and can't understand why people think he's a retarded creep
>>24917290I accept your concession
>>24918106My concession is that it's obvious why no one takes you seriously. I'm glad you accept it.
Antinatalist only argument is that natalist are selfish, my counter to that is. Why is that a bad thing?
>>24918602The thought experiment directly addresses the asymmetry in the book that this thread is about. If it's too difficult for you to engage with a simple thought experiment I understand; name-calling is a lot easier :) I'm not sure what you would expect a pain-pleasure asymmetry thought experiment to entail, 'rainbows or lukewarm coffee?' Have some backbone
>>24920401>The thought experiment Outs you as a retarded creep. We know. >directly addresses the asymmetry in the bookAsymmetry is an unprovable forced premise that retards like your self fall back to merely asserting when faced with criticism you can't answer. >If it's too difficult for you to engage with a simple thought experimentIt's not about engaging with a plagiarized version of something Benatar said you're mistaking as your own original thought, dumb-dumb. It's about articulating why retards like you become ideologically possessed and fall into the exact same patterns again and again even after they've been pointed out multiple times (e.g. mental illness and vulnerable narcissism exemplified by the inability to contextualize differing viewpoints while making laughably pretentious prescriptions for life as if your silly simple ideology gives you the ultimate view of the human condition, lol). >name-calling is a lot easier :) Name-calling is a lot more creative than parroting someone else's arguments to LARP like you're doing philosophy. >I'm not sure what you would expect a pain-pleasure asymmetry thought experiment, 'rainbows or lukewarm coffee?'Yes, anon. You're so edgy and attuned to the dark side of life. No go tell your mom's boyfriend "YOU'RE NOT MY REAL DAD" and take out the garbage. >Have some backboneThat coming from a pathetic faggot who spends his time lamenting the fact his dad didn't pull out so he could become a stain on some mattress? Lol!
>>24920433You are literally hysterical and ideologically possessed to a dangerous degree. I love my life (more than you based on your apparent issues) and am ecstatic that I was born, both for me and for the people who's lives I enrich. That has nothing to do with the claim of AN. What makes retards like you write up this deranged pasta? If anyone here is deeply troubled it sounds like, you listen to yourself ranting and raving like a teenager. I accept your concession sweetie, don't worry about it.
>>24920647we found himthe happiest man on 4chan dot orghis wonderful life is about proving people wrong in the antinatalism section of the website
>>24920853Does it shock you that someone interested in philosophy might be on a forum, on a thread about philosophy? If you want to farm the cannon-fodder then do it, but I'm not one of the people posting about the things you're hysterical about.
>>24920859It shocks me a bit that someone interested in philosophy can find the "my life is wonderful and you can't see life is wonderful because your life is sad" argument as not cringe to type it here
>>24920919I don't know why i'm responding to an Indian who can't even read, goodbye saar
>>24920647>No youCool story, retard. Be less dumb the next time you try to sperg at me. >>24920853Lol.
>>24920944If this was you: >>24920647 you write more like a jeet than the other guy.
>>24920647>What makes retards like you write up this deranged pastaUh, that's not a pasta. You need to go back.
