>28.5 years since publication>Still BTFOs every attempt at logical counterargumentNotice how I wrote "logical" as there are plenty of retard tier counterarguments, the foremost being, "I simply do not care."
>>25012645Is there a logical reason why a logical argument should be persuasive or relevant here?
>>25012645>OP is a faggotseems pretty logical to me
>>25012645the presence of benefit outweighs the presence of harm
>>25012645The answer is you're an idiot with no clue how to apply logic.
>>25012645No child made to tolerate the 'absence of benefit' of not receiving a present while other children did would describe it as 'not bad'.
Existence is inherently good because goodness is defined be the increased degree or security of existence. For example to give sight to the blind is good because it increases the extent to which they take part in existence by imbuing them with a natural power that they were denied. Making a weak and unhealthy people strong is good for the same reason. Rescuing people from a burning building preserves their existence. Bad or evil is the tendency to drag people or things to the primordial chaos where there is no possibilities: diseases that kill or cripple or blind people, poverty, criminality, perversion and corruption all represent this. The void has no bad because it's the destination of the bad, bad has done its job and is no longer necessary.
>Bad or evil is the tendency to drag people or things to the primordial chaos where there is no possibilitiesThen existence is evil because existence actualizes one potential state of many. In nonexistence, you can potentially be an unlimited number of things; the possibilities are greater.
Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder
>>25012827This 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?
>>25012827Anti-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.
Why 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 framing. 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.
autistic utilitarian anglo squares are only beneficial to the bugman
>>25012827>>25012830>>25012835I imagine anti-natalists as members of the general population exhibit different traits to those pessimists who reason in a philosophical way about things. The underlined text in the second image is only really worth considering if the anti-natalist judgments being made are based on some kind of individual experience of life unshared by the rest of the population. But the philosophical anti-natalists are often arguing from logical premises as in the case of OP.
>harm>badAnti-natalism presupposes a universal morality which I reject.If harm benefits me, then it is good.
>>25012649You're trying to use logic to counter the premise. Enough said.
>>25012645why is absence of harm good but absence of benefit "not bad"?
>>25013507Basically, your little table is saying that if I walked past a stranger without beating the everliving shit out of them, I'm actively comitting a good deed. Which is a retarded idea. Therefore, your table is wrong.
>>25012835>Their defective nature simply precludes them from accepting any rationalization outside of their own self-indoctrinationAs oppose to??? (not an anti-natalist retard)
>>25013523>your little table is saying that if I walked past a stranger without beating the everliving shit out of them, I'm actively comitting a good deed.No it doesn't. Solving a problem you created leaves you at net neutral at best.On the other hand, preventing someone else from beating the ever loving shit out of a stranger is a good deed. Which is what the chart is saying.
>>25013542>As oppose to???Incorporating new information and context without prior affirmation of the prejudice to which they cling.
>>25012645>as long as I stay within the strict bounds of my axiomatic thinking I'm always right
>>25013717It's crazy how many times multiple people have laid out that flawed reasoning in various different ways, going as far as to describe in detail how it represents ideological possession, without them ever being able to grasp it and move forward. It's beyond stupidity--mental illness/personality disorder is the only explanation for it.
>when people disagree with me it’s mental illnessarguments presented: 0
>>25012645>still falling for Pascal's Heckin Chungus Wagerino Wholesome Keanu 100 in the Currentest Year That Ever Yearedno board is safe from slackjawed phoneposters using voice-to-text
>>25012645Absence of harm isn't good. It's just not bad.Otherwise, absence of benefit would have to be bad.
>>25012645>>25013800I'm feeling generous so have a refutation that isn't just a dunk: Logic isn't enough.Pascal's Wager (which your image is describing) is perfectly logically valid. But validity is downstream of an argument's base assumptions, and those assumptions are not Sound.Belief cannot be chosen. The argument assumes that it can. A placebo only works if you think it's medicine; you can't Choose to believe in it if you know it's a placebo.Belief is nebulous, abstract. This is why so many Christian converts have histories of addiction: you can only be opened to a new Belief when you're in an absolutely dire state of mental/emotional dysfunction. You can't just Choose to feel the "touch of God," that pulls you into a whole new set of beliefs.
>>25012645>scenario C: X ceases to exist>cessation of harm (good)>cessation of benefit (not bad)Anti-natalists have literally no good answer to this. Their only argument for why they shouldn't just kill themselves is "uhhh i need to preach anti-natalism to others for some reason".
>>25013840Ceasing to exist is very different from never existing in the first place.
The presence or absence of harm can only be of consequence to a particular subject named X. That is, the presence of harm is bad for X. But if X never exists, then absence and presence can not have any value whatsoever because X has never existed for bad, good, or neutral to hold. So both squares in scenario B have to say "undefined." If we imagine that the presence or absence of harm or good is consequential objectively, regardless of the subject's ever existing or not, then that has to be supported and it nevertheless produces absurdities.For example, if X doesn't exist, then I can just as well start listing off an infinite number of people I've imagined who don't exist. What is the objective moral status of an arbitrary and infinite number of non-existent beings?
>>25013820>A placebo only works if you think it's medicineNot true. See: open label placebo.
>>25013844And that difference is completely irrelevant. If existence is harmful, then cessation of existence is necessarily cessation of harm.
>>25013845Is preventing the creation of a subject X that would experience infinite torture a good thing, a neutral thing, or a bad thing?>>25013848You, as something that exists, can never return to nonexistence. In other words things can't actually cease existing from their own perspective. Therefore suicide is a matter of personal gain/loss. If you believe the negatives of experiencing the rest of your life outweigh the positives, it is rational to kill yourself. Otherwise, it is not.
>>25013799It's beyond mere disagreement, anon. It's the fact you can be told >>25013717 over and over and over and always fail to acknowledge let alone incorporate and move beyond it. That pattern of behavior, unshakeable ideological possession at the cost of retarding your intellectual growth just so you can maintain a depressive outlook that makes you feel special, indicates mental illness/personality disorder. If you want a black pill, the truth is this is far more interesting than the silly beliefs you parrot.
>>25012645this graph presupposes a linear frame work of time, thats not how time works, unfortunately.
>>25013858
>>25013846It's all about the ritual edifice of medicine and doctor as guru/shaman. Nothing has changed.
>>25013888A placebo will still work even if you're knowingly doing it to yourself.
having a kid would fuck my life up so no thanks
>>25013867It's not an ad hominem, anon. The fact is you can't acknowledge that there are a multitude of arguments to reject the axiomatic system you impose into any and all discussions regarding "your" beliefs. You can't have a discussion with anyone unless it's framed according to a particular prejudice that you believe makes what you parrot unassailable. The fact you've been told this again and again in various ways by multiple different people and are still incapable of engaging it is either an indicator of stupidity or mental illness. I'll give you the benefit of doubt by saying it isn't simply stupidity on your part but rather ideological possession that feeds into whatever personality disorder you have and provides a salve, alongside aspects of that aforementioned personality disorder, for underlying symptoms of mental illness. So, is antinatalism itself disproven by the fact you're mentally ill? No, that's not the argument being made. Do you exemplify a pattern of behavior that indicates ideological possession and mental illness/personality disorder? Most certainly. Are you an "antinatalist" because you're mentally ill and have a personality disorder? More than likely.
>having kidsWhy? What difference does it make if my bloodline ends immediately when I die, or in 3 billion years?There is no legacy you can leave that won't be destroyed by time. That is what it means to be mortal. Immortality has always been the only goal of life, and we will never achieve it.
>>25013846That's genuinely interesting and I'll read up on it more, but I only used that as an illustrative example; doesn't negate the point I made.
>>25013906arguments presented: 0
>>25013918There are plenty of arguments in that post. Way to prove the central point that you're incapable of acknowledging them.
>>25013915>Immortality has always been the only goal of lifeWhat a dumb statement. You just have death anxiety, retard.
>>25013958>It's not an ad hominem, anonunqualified assertion>The fact is you can't acknowledge that there are a multitude of arguments to reject the axiomatic system you impose into any and all discussions regarding "your" beliefs. unqualified assertion>You can't have a discussion with anyone unless it's framed according to a particular prejudice that you believe makes what you parrot unassailable. unqualified assertion>The fact you've been told this again and again in various ways by multiple different people and are still incapable of engaging it is either an indicator of stupidity or mental illness. unqualified assertion>I'll give you the benefit of doubt by saying it isn't simply stupidity on your part but rather ideological possession that feeds into whatever personality disorder you have and provides a salve, alongside aspects of that aforementioned personality disorder, for underlying symptoms of mental illness.unqualified assertion>So, is antinatalism itself disproven by the fact you're mentally ill? No, that's not the argument being made. assertion>Do you exemplify a pattern of behavior that indicates ideological possession and mental illness/personality disorder? Most certainly. unqualified assertion>Are you an "antinatalist" because you're mentally ill and have a personality disorder? More than likely.unqualified assertionGrade: Farguments require argumentation
>>25013855>In other words things can't actually cease existing from their own perspective. Only because perspective itself ceases, and the cessation of perspective is, again, the cessation of suffering.>If you believe the negatives of experiencing the rest of your life outweigh the positives, it is rational to kill yourself. Otherwise, it is not.This is a concession that the positives of life may outweigh the negatives. In other words, that the absence of benefit may be more bad than the absence of harm is good. Anti-natalism simply fails to work once this concession is made. For any offspring you have, there is no guarantee that life will be perceived as harmful (far from it, since most people simply do not see it this way), and for the small minority who do perceive life as harmful they can simply correct it with suicide.
>>25013960>projecting this hardI don't fear or worry about death at all. The people who have death anxiety are those obsessed with leaving something after they die, whether that be children or some other legacy.I don't care if I am forgotten a day after I am dead. When I die, that will be that. What is absolutely true is that the function of life is self preservation, and the highest possible (or not possible) form of that is immortality.
>>25013966>It's not an ad hominem, anonIt's not because it's based on a qualified description of your behavior without using such to discriminate against the beliefs you parrot. >The fact is you can't acknowledge that there are a multitude of arguments to reject the axiomatic system you impose into any and all discussions regarding "your" beliefs.This is a description of the manner in which you "debate." Various arguments are offered that: 1) give reason to outright reject your axioms, 2) provide context as to why they need not be interpreted the way you impose, 3) point out incongruities with your presumed moral outcomes, 4) bring attention to inconsistencies in the application of your moral logic, and 5) call into question your standing to make such a grand pronouncement about the human condition. >You can't have a discussion with anyone unless it's framed according to a particular prejudice that you believe makes what you parrot unassailable.Your argument always retreats back to asserting "not existing means nothing bad can happen" which, aside from sidestepping all arguments made against you, is wholly dependant on the semantics you impose. This is what the other anon was getting at when he mocked you here: >>25013717.>The fact you've been told this again and again in various ways by multiple different people and are still incapable of engaging it is either an indicator of stupidity or mental illness.This has been qualified by the above. You can't respond to criticism of your beliefs without the prejudice of merely asserting a framework which denies that criticism of your beliefs is possible. Even when this fact is pointed out, as it has been multiple times by multiple people, you ignore it instead of directly addressing it and moving forward. This is ideological possession. >So, is antinatalism itself disproven by the fact you're mentally ill? No, that's not the argument being made.This is why the above isn't an ad hom. I'm not saying the beliefs you champion are wrong because you're automatically disingenuous when it comes to their discussion. I'm pointing out your pattern of argument and challenging you to either rise above it or at least give a better response than crying about ad homs and pretending nothing is being said. >arguments require argumentationSays the guy who didn't interact with a single point and merely asserted "unqualified" when qualifications were repeatedly presented and laid out, lol.
>>25014056All arguments lie on axioms. If you want to reject the axioms of an argument, you must first identify them and then argue why they should not be accepted.F-: even less argumentation than the last one
>>25013992>Immortality has always been the only goal of lifeThat statement indicates death anxiety. >What is absolutely true is that the function of life is self preservationNo, retard. People sacrifice themselves for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with self-preservation.
>pinprick objectionIf the assymetry is true then it is still bad for Gigachad to come into existence if he ever suffers the smallest pain. Money, women, creativity, just a great life on all counts but if he stubs his toe once then it would have been better for him not to have come into existence. Hard to swallow.
>>25014078*asymmetry
>>25014070>still can't respond to direct criticism of his manner of argument >can only make generalizations that have no bearing on the criticism that was offered I take the benefit of doubt back. Aside from being mentally ill, having a personality disorder, and being ideologically possessed you are in fact stupid.
>>25014076>That statement indicates death anxiety.What a weird thing to insist upon. Do you think wanting to live means that you fear death? Are you afraid of death if you don't kill yourself right now? What in that equation changes when you reach the end of your natural lifespan?>People sacrifice themselves for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with self-preservationWhat individual organisms do has nothing to do with statements on the aims of life in general. Life's progress towards its goal is blind, deaf, and unfeeling. It will inevitably reach out in all directions while searching for a path. Not to say that human behavior is random. You are a highly refined vessel for the preservation of your genes. Read picrel.
Antinatalists are emotionally deranged intellectually stunted midwits who failed to grow out of "I HATE YOU MOM, I NEVER ASKED TO BE BORN" teenage angst and think buying into diet nihilism makes them seem le dark and insightful. On top of this embarassing reality, these people think they can somehow land insults when their entire worldview is based on being miserable about the fact they themselves exist. "Better to have never been," you say? Well, if restricted to you guys and the lives you've chosen for yourselves you're not wrong. Lol.
>>25014078>if he stubs his toe once then it would have been better for him not to have come into existenceYes.
>absence of benefit (not bad)
>>25014104>What a weird thing to insist uponIf your worldview is so narrow that all striving is reduced to a want for physical immortality then, yeah. That's revelatory of your own priorities (i.e. escaping death). >What individual organisms do has nothing to do with statements on the aims of life in generalWrong. You're making a teleological assertion that's refuted by a multitude of examples. >posts pop-sciLOL!
>>25014116If you thought absence of benefit for a person that does not exist was "good", you would be having as many children as you physically could. Not doing so would be murder, even.Instead you are an incel
>>25014116Lol.
>absence of harm (good)
>>25014120>If your worldview is so narrow that all striving is reduced to a want for physical immortality then, yeahUh huh. Again, you're going to have to explain that.Do you think wanting to live means that you fear death? Are you afraid of death if you don't kill yourself right now? What in that equation changes when you reach the end of your natural lifespan?>You're making a teleological assertion that's refuted by a multitude of examples.Go ahead and list some.>muh pop sciThe gene-centered view of evolution is the view that most biologists accept, and that was the book that popularized it.
>>25014138>Again, you're going to have to explain that.I don't expect you to accept it but it's self-evident. Chalk it up to intellectual immaturity on your part. >Do you think wanting to live means that you fear death?Nope. >Go ahead and list some.There's no need to because the fact that people have sacrificed themselves for all sorts of things that have nothing to do with self-preservation is obvious. >The gene-centered view of evolutionBro. You haven't studied biology and you're injecting teleology into it based on a pop-sci book. It's embarrassing.
>>25014171> it's self-evidentLet me guess. If you like pancakes, you must hate waffles?>I totally have examples I just won't tell them to youOk.>teleologyI am describing what life does, not prescribing a purpose. It approaches an end point, that being immortality.>p-pop sciYou should read the book.Let me ask you this: how would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning?
>>25014183>If you like pancakes, you must hate waffles?If there's a full delicious breakfast buffet to choose from and you come back with nothing on your plate but waffles it says something about your preferences. >OkGlad you accept the fact that people sacrifice themselves for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with self-preservation. >I am describing what life does, not prescribing a purposeYou're taking a generalization as a prime focus and acting like it's the ultimate motivation for all things. >You should read the bookI still have biology textbooks from uni. I don't need to read pop-sci written 50 years ago. >how would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning?It's obvious you're full of shit regardless of whether you've had something to eat or not, lol.
>>25014224This is not a breakfast buffet. You have one choice. Pancakes or waffles. If you choose waffles, does that mean you hate pancakes? It's a very simple question.>people sacrifice themselves for a multitude of reasons that have nothing to do with self-preservation.So many reasons yet none given. I don't know why you even cornered yourself here, what I said has nothing to do with "sacrifice" or what individual people do with their lives.>I still have biology textbooks from uniYou should try reading them.How would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning?
>>25014295>This is not a breakfast buffet.Way to miss the point, retard. >So many reasons yet none given.Anon, people sacrifice themselves all the time and it's perfectly valid to say the act of sacrifice itself is against "self-preservation". Sure, you can beg the question by making a laughably elaborate argument that a soldier dying on a battlefield was somehow preserving people more likely to carry his DNA but the fact is such likely never crossed his mind and his motivation could have been anything from not wanting to seem like a coward, being too spaced out to get a position closer to the back of the line, or wanting to save a fellow soldier (who could be of an entirely different race). You can make an argument that "it all comes down to preserving your genes" but the fact is you don't behave that way and all you'll end up doing is begging the question for every example given. I suggest you base your belief system on more than just 1 pop-sci book written half a century ago. >You should try reading themI have. See the comment above about how you shouldn't imagine yourself to be an expert on not only biology but the human condition based off of a single pop-sci book, lol. >How would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast this morning?Probably a similar but a much less extreme form of the way your dad feels whenever he thinks about the fact he had you for a son. Tired, grumpy, and regretful.
>>25014325>it's perfectly valid to say the act of sacrifice itself is against "self-preservation"No it isn't lol.>laughably elaborate argument that a soldier dying on a battlefield was somehow preserving people more likely to carry his DNA Calling an argument laughable doesn't actually refute it. Again, this is a mainstream view in biology. Which you would know if you actually cracked open any of those books.>not wanting to seem like a coward, being too spaced out to get a position closer to the back of the line, or wanting to save a fellow soldier Why do you think "cowardice" is a thing?Why do you think dangerous situations cause hyper alertness? Why do you think adrenaline exists?Why do you think altruism, risking yourself for another person, exists?You want to feel that your thoughts and actions are shaped by some mysterious thing other than the continuance of your genetics, that you are different from every other thing that has ever lived. I don't know why you insist on this. I guess spergs just get mad at the idea that you aren't some blank slate being of pure thought.
>>25012645It is possible that Presence of benefit(+) > Presence of suffering(-), a net positive. While Absence of benefit = Absence of harm = 0, always. So, in reality "X exist = possibility of good" while "X does not exist = no good". And since I value the former more therefore I reject anti- natalism.
>>25014361based gambler
>>25014355>No it isn'tIt is for the reasons described in that post. The sole motivation for conscious actors isn't merely to pass on their genes otherwise I'd be having sex with my girlfriend and you'd be sating your urges with pornography. Heuristics are fine and dandy when it comes to organizing and directing scientific research but, like I said before, you shouldn't be basing your worldview on a pop-sci book written 50 years ago and pretending that, having read it, you're an expert on not only biology but the entirety of the human condition. >Calling an argument laughable doesn't actually refute it.That's why I qualified why it's laughable. Haven't read the rest of your post yet but I'm guessing you're going to ignore the point I made about how you'll nitpick every example given in order to beg the question. You've also probably forgotten that earlier point about how you're taking a generalization as a prime focus and imagining all things are motivated based on it (which is, laughably, simplistic and idiotic). Again, don't imagine yourself to be an expert in Evolutionary Biology after reading a single 50 year old pop-sci book. >Why do you think "cowardice" is a thing Why do you think dangerous situations cause hyper alertness? Why do you think adrenaline exists? Why do you think altruism, risking yourself for another person, exists?There you go, lol. Again: people sacrifice themselves for a multitude of different reasons as laid out (and ignored by you) in my last post. Biological imperatives as defined by a vast socially informed scientific enterprise, subject to change and adapt to new findings and social contexts, aren't the ultimate answer to all aspects of the human condition. Sorry anon, but you've been sold a map to a bad shortcut that makes you seem far more childish than it does intelligent. >You want to feel that your thoughts and actions are shaped by some mysterious thing other than the continuance of your genetics, that you are different from every other thing that has ever lived.Given your the pretentious proclamations you parrot it's obvious you're projecting your own narcissism here, anon. The fact is people do things for all sorts of reasons based on all sorts of rationales and the thought "I'm doing this to protect people who may carry the same genetics as me" doesn't factor into their decisions. Again, you can beg the question by cherry-picking elements and contextualizing them according to that one pop-sci book you read but the fact of the matter is that only betrays the ignorance of your worldview and a lack of thinking on your part. >I guess spergs just get mad at the idea that you aren't some blank slate being of pure thought.Try reading another book, Mr. Expert.
>>25014424>wall of seetheyou reject a theory that almost perfectly explains the behavioral patterns of humans and animalsyour reason for rejecting it is that people are not immediately aware of the origin of these impulses, therefore they don't existyour explanation for these behaviors is "I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT OK??" amazing
I love antinatalism threads! Great discussions guys!
>>25014442>wall of seethePeople laughing at you aren't angry, anon. They're having fun. >you reject a theory that almost perfectly explains the behavioral patterns of humans and animalsI reject the laughably pretentious pronouncements you're making based off of having read a single 50 year old pop-sci book, Mr. Expert. >your reason for rejecting it is that people are not immediately aware of the origin of these impulsesNo, retard. For various reasons I've given, ranging from the specific details of individual counterexamples to the nature of scientific enterprise itself, I'm telling you that you're injecting a teleological imperative into biology. You've proven my point that all you can do is force a framework (that you're taking from a 50 year old pop-sci book, LOL) and beg the question. Again, if you want to avoid embarrassing yourself like this in the future read more than a single book and if you're going to LARP as a detached intellectual make sure some of them aren't pop-sci. >therefore they don't existNever made that claim, retard. This is what happens when you take a generalization as your solitary focus and imaging it to be the sole motivation for all things. >your explanation for these behaviors is "I DON'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN IT OK??"Again, no. My explanation is that there are a multitude of psychological and behavioral motivations that can result in a given action AND that you're childish for thinking you've found the secret of the human condition in a pop-sci book written half a century ago. >amazingLaughable.
>>25014484>I-I’m not seething!Of course not :^)Life’s trajectory is NOT self preservation, because people have altruism!! Never mind that “true” altruism does not exist. Never mind that altruism and other prosocial behaviors can be perfectly modeled without unexplained “psychological and behavioral motivations” that come from seemingly nothing, or somewhere you refuse to explain (I wonder why). Never mind that altruism itself does not say anything one way or another about the progress of life towards more effective self-preservation machines. I’m going to use the word teleological now because I don’t understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive.
>>25014496>Life’s trajectory is NOT self preservation, because people have altruism!! Never mind that “true” altruism does not exist. Never mind that altruism and other prosocial behaviors can be perfectly modeled without unexplained “psychological and behavioral motivations” that come from seemingly nothing, or somewhere you refuse to explain (I wonder why). Never mind that altruism itself does not say anything one way or another about the progress of life towards more effective self-preservation machines. I’m going to use the word teleological now because I don’t understand the difference between descriptive and prescriptive.Holy shit, lol. What a meltie!
Debating against retarded opinions is midwit behavior.https://files.catbox.moe/jvsly1.mp4
>>25014522Making fun of retards is high IQ.
>>25014519Concession accepted
>>25014658I'm glad you've accepted the concession that you lost the debate and had a meltie. Next time if all you have to bring to the table is a single 50 year old pop-sci book don't even bother typing, lol.
>>25014681uh oh stinky
>>25014496bodied that freak
>>25012645>Simply existing without any harm or pleasure is fundamentally good>But living is badAm I not experiencing a literally infinite amount of "Absence of harm" at every waking moment?Why can I not feel it?
>>25014706it's not just absence of harm but prevention
>>25014703If that were true you wouldn't have to announce it ;^)
>>25014708>preventionLol, no it isn't.
Half of this thread is one guy
>>25014708What?Several things have had to happen to prevent me from staving, asphyxiating, dehydrating, drowning, etc etc, meaning that clearly doesn't solve the issueAnd saying it's prevention but not absence implies that it is fundamentally morally good to try to do bad things but be stoppedShould I begin attempting to end the world?Should I try extremely half-heartedly to rape and murder everyone I see so they can feel the joy of my prevention?
Open question: Is there any other cult of ideology as pathetic and lame as antinatalism? With something like Marxism you at least have a chance at picking up some decent cultural critiques but with antinatalists it's literally just "WAAAAAAAA, I WISH I WASN'T BORN! WAAAAA" pity parties and masturbatory pseudo-debates they always end up losing. Sure, with Marxists you'll have a bunch of resentful poorfags and pseuds but with antinatalists it's overwhelming clinically depressed rejects and incels using Benatard as a cope for their shortcomings. That's not even to mention all the weird terrorist shit some of them get into like shooting up schools and blowing up clinics. Seriously, what a bunch of creepy fags.
>>25012649If my opponent takes up the illogical position and concedes that mine is the logical position, I'm happy to end the debate at that point.
>>25014753you caused it (negative for you)you prevented it (positive for you)net neutral for yousomeone else caused it (negative for them)you prevent it (positive for you)net positive for you
>>25014770Hehe an almost positive mention of MarxismI'll take it! Thanks anon
what is it about antinatalism that breaks the brains of /lit/fags?
>>25014958You're incredibly easy targets for justified ridicule. Any other questions?
if nonexistence is so much better than existence, why can't i kill you?>inb4 but i'm already alive so it wouldn't be as goodstop changing your mind, coward. your life is only a few short decades whereas nonexistence is endless
>>25015002You would have to kill yourself first. Otherwise you would be admitting that there is a purpose in staying alive, that being to kill other people.
>>25015007i wouldn't have to kill myself first because i don't start crying at the first sign of pain like nihilists and anti-natalists do
>>25012645Presence of harm is good, better than presence of benefit in fact.
