I have nowhere else to write this, and I do not believe anyone here particularly cares nor is anywhere near well read or invested into this topic as me on this board. But I just snorted a cute little matchstick of spec-tested uncut no.4 China white and I'm sitting in my garage smoking temu tax-free tobacco listening to early del Rey and I'm on a literary vibe and feel like expressing something that needs to be said - David Benatar and his axiogical asymmetry argument is the most convoluted time and ink spilling (literally 20+ response papers have been wasted addressing his nonsensical vegan salad) waste of life that has been nothing but a bane stain and utter waste of life in the anti-natal scene which truly, genuinely should never have been been. Once again I slog through another interview of his, this time in catalan that I've ran through Google translate and once again, 20 years on, he's still pushing this incoherent babble. The argument itself is just such an obvious mess. Utterly rubbished so many times - particularly by the real OG anti-natal progenitor Julio Cabrera - with just such an obvious, glaring flaw that it's just become an embarrassment that he continues to assert it. WHAT ASSYMETRY, DAVE? The one you just conjure out of thin air because you only, for reasons only known to you, counterfactually represent the one-to-be-born's interest in avoiding suffering, and NOT his or hers interest in being benefitted? God it just continues to grind and jab at me every time I read this fucking crap bring asserted over and over. Baseless, empirical psychological claims, claims of an explanatory value for a data set you refuse to produce. Amateur fucking shit. I'm sick of it. I'm sick of being an anti-natatalist and having near every fucking argument or discussion somehow looping back to this cowardly Soith Africunt whonrefuses to even show his face. From one antinatalist to another- fuck off David Benatar. Fuck you and your shitty argument.

Thank you for reading this and allowing me my catharsis. I suppose the sign of a good book is that it produces engagement within its reader, and to that David acheived. But if it's engagement is one of frustration puzzlement befuddlement or outright opiate anger, then is it really a good book?

Read it once. Give yourself the context for the past 20 years of wasted antinatalist ink, then burn it. Read "Discomfort and Moral Impediment" by Julio Cabrera and let's get back to antinatalism proper - one founded in philosophical pessimism and not this vile analytic ai-slop garbage. Give me one second to tab back to the article I just read... so I can hock a no.4 drip spit llama loagie at my fucking phone. Peace. And fuck you mom.

Benatar's a clown. Thanks for the Cabrera rec.

>>24487194
https://www-catorze-cat.translate.goog/entrevistes/veus-campus/david-benatar-millor-no-haver-existit-mai_1226930_102.html?utm_source=x&_x_tr_sl=auto&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp

You can waste your life on the article as well if you like

>>24487303
I'd prefer not to. I'm already enjoying Discofort and Moral Impediment.

>>24487307
How'd you get so fast? Is libgen back?

>>24487405
Internet Archive.

And then the world got overran by technofuturists like Elon and section 8ers while antinatalists and their genes went extinct *slow clap*

>>24487303
>waste

Antinatalism is gay.

Reminder that anti-natalists are likely to be mentally ill and have a personality disorder

>>24487710
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?

>>24487710
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.

>>24487180 (OP)
>But I just snorted a cute little matchstick of spec-tested uncut no.4 China white
This was definitely typed by a roastie

>>24487718
>I've been biologically hard-wired by my reward circuits and my parents' genes to get more out of life than an invalid, therefore life good
this isn't good philosophy

>>24487794
I'm a male sorry

>>24487180 (OP)
>counterfactually represent the one-to-be-born's interest in avoiding suffering, and NOT his or hers interest in being benefitted
I am convinced..

>>24487802
Don't respond that loser he spams his spam posts every thread, responds to nothing and basically gets ignored. I just hide his posts antinatalist threads.

>>24488347
Of whom? Benatar and his failure? Or my (and many others) point out his obvious error?

>>24488345
prove it

>>24488350
>I just hide his posts antinatalist threads.
but how did you reply into the thread if you've hidden it?
>>24488352
By Benagems absent bads being the best, yeah

Hmm maybe I personally put more emphasis on absent sufferings being more important than any uneaten chocolate because I live in northern climate, not enough sunlight?

I still feel like it works just fine anyhow though.
>counterfactually represent the one-to-be-born's interest in avoiding suffering, and NOT his or hers interest in being benefitted
I just don't see how it doesn't work. It works on me very effectively, i.e. that's the justification that achieves the anti-natalist goal on me in particular.
This Sombrero guy, no need for philosophical pessimism: Benatar hits the spot, at least in my brain.

>I just snorted a cute little matchstick of spec-tested uncut no.4 China white
Also I never did any drugs, maybe that has something to do with me thinking le benefits and pleasures aren't worth jack shit but absent pains are the only thing that matters?

>>24488386
You should definitely try drugs, but not the bliss inducing kind, like heroin. They're heaven, and you'll destroy yourself wanting in again and again and again.
Try a low-medium dose of shrooms after you've done your research. Psychedelics are relatively harmless for normies but they may rip you a new one if you're the neurotic kind thinking you've got it all figured out (been there). But once you submit you'll discover all kinds of interesting shapes your consciousness can take effortlessly.

>>24488419
Max joy I had was me solo wiping out enemy team in RS:Siege 6 years ago.
Kinda funny thinking that a magic tablette could bring me back into that state instantly, anytime anywhere.
I'll wait for a hedonistic ze pod instead, that can be tweaked, with controlled gradients of bliss. Don't want to cheat and jump above that R6siege win.

>>24488386
>counterfactually represent the one-to-be-born's interest in avoiding suffering, and NOT his or hers interest in being benefitted
>I just don't see how it doesn't work. It works on me very effectively, i.e. that's the justification that achieves the anti-natalist goal on me in particular.

But then this just seem like nothing more than a particular psychological quirk of both Benatar, and you. That is, if you really understand his argument, he is saying that we ought be indifferent between the choice of remaining unborn, or being born into a life of unremitting bliss. I'm not exaggerating - that is literally his position. Because absent pleasures are 'not bad', they cannot be worse than their presence. And therefore in this case the child who could be born into this unremitting bliss life, but isnt, isn't worse off, when counterfactually represented (that is to say- we all understand there is no actual little kid in the unborn who is better or worse off, this is about a value claim). One along the exact same lines that he DOES make counterfactually speaking with respect to one who could be born into a life with ANY amount of harm. That is, if there were the choice between unremitting bliss for eternity that began with a single pinprick, David benatar would say that it would be better for this child to have never been, and is made worse off by having come into existence into a life of (near entirely) infinite bliss.

Now this all just seems alien to me a normal who thinks that we should take into consideration two things- the child-to-be's potential interest in avoiding harm (which I and of course all antinatalists as well put a greater emphasis on,) and the childs potential interest in being benefitted.

Now of course just to add, because I know someone will respond- well they don't exist so how can their lack of benenefit be a bad thing? Please read the book and understand the argument. It's not a logical claim. It's an evaluative,axiological claim David is making- with respect to absent harms which are avoided by not being born David benatar is like woo yeah great !!! With respect to absent pleasure he's like irrelevant, doesn't affect anybody, non-issue. It's so dumb. Logically, we MUST treat the absences in the same sense. If someone, when counterfactually represented can be better off by not being born, due to avoiding the harms of life, then just by sheer logical obligation we HAVE to say they are worse off not being born, with respect to the benefits they would have felt, but didn't, if not born. The only way around this is deny the existence of intrinsic/genuine/ actual pleasure/good entirely, along the lines of Schopenhauer. Where there is nought but suffering and its negation. But David benatar has denied this and says intrinsic goods do exist. It's just that their absence aren't bad unless a deprivation. Whereas the absence of harms is good thing, even though there is nobody for whom this absent harm makes better off.

>>24488444
It seems to me that when you get to this point it should just *click* eventually, I guess.

>>24488430
Haha you have no idea how much pleasure your brain is capable of registering. It's probably more healthy to keep that siege win at the top for now. You'd ruin your life exposing yourself to things that lower it to a relative 2/10. But shrooms arent about bliss, not really, it's more like a soul fertilizer, with beneficial effects that last months.

>>24488350
>I hide from posts on 4chan
That's because antinatalists are pussies.
>>24488363
That guy is mindbroken by the study. He kept linking to a "debunking" of it he wrote (on Reddit, lol).
>this isn't good philosophy
It explains why retards like OP aren't equipped to weight quality of life arguments and keep coming back like ideologically possessed autists to sperg the same nonsense over and over like a 5 year-old who never tires of rewatching the same movie. These threads sure aren't "good philosophy"; just a bunch of crybabies engaging in mental masturbation over a laughably simplistic ideology.