I give up. David is right.

Benatar was my lecturer for a year and he was eloquent and merry in a way we all felt disappointing for the prince of the discontinuation of life

>>24540144 (OP)
>>24540153
Mental illness

>>24540156
True mental illness is looking at the state of this world and thinking "yeah lemme yank a soul out of nonexistence into this flesh of suffering".

>>24540144 (OP)
>claims that being itself is harmful and nonexistence is preferable
>shows a gorgeous, natural desert landscape on the cover that instinctually invokes feelings of peace and pleasure
imagine writing a book so shit that it doesn't even have to be opened to disprove itself

>>24540306
One could die from thirst in that desert, but one certainly wouldn't be deprived of that beautiful sight if one didn't exist.

>>24540144 (OP)
No he isn't. He has no conception of "what it would be like" if he was non-existent. It is and always will be completely impossible to weigh Being and Non-Being on the scales and judge which is "better" than the other. He is impotently fantasising, and that sort of thing is never good or sensible or correct.

>>24540252
You can set up an Exit Bag at any time anon. No one is stopping you.

>>24540306
>life is about looking at pictures of landscapes

>>24540252
>yank a soul out of nonexistence
atheists are so dumb.

>>24540498
>life is about suicide

>>24540498
The point is that life, even in its most banal manifestation is a profoundly beautiful, pleasant experience
Never mind the fact that we are incapable of conceiving anything about nonexistence (both existence and nonexistence are merely human abstractions)
life isnt the issue, society is

>>24540144 (OP)
>David is right.
David Pearce you mean

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

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

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

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

>>24540144 (OP)
>>24540708
Jewish and retarded, both of you.

>>24540144 (OP)

Kys then

>>24540622
>The point is that life, even in its most banal manifestation is a profoundly beautiful, pleasant experience
Tell that to the millions of kids getting raped everyday

>>24540774
if they don't like it, why don't they just kill themselves?

>>24540144 (OP)

>>24540774
getting raped isnt a property of existence

>>24540591
who cares, both of you can't prove shit

>>24540144 (OP)
a shame that someone else is not the famous writer of the anti natalist view point given that he is a raging retard and hypocrite

>>24540144 (OP)
Always was, life is a cosmic tragedy.

>>24540306
Eventually you would go mad. Everyone does

>>24541188
And amerikkka is the flamboyant actress

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

>>24541752
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?

>>24541752
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.

>>24540144 (OP)
I hate the moralfagging stuff that he tried to impose in this book. I too a believer of having kids le bad and I didnt want to have kid myself, but his faulty approach to this matter is the reason why people laf at him on this book and staining the entire anti natalist 'belief' to this day
Benatar is a stupid fucking moron who didnt have the capacity in this field

>>24541752
https://youtu.be/yRe4Y_vg174

>>24540144 (OP)
>constantly posts anti-natalist threads using the same image of a book that even other anti-natalists trash (Cabrera absolutely mogged Benatar), only to give up replying once he gets BTFO in the replies
Get help anon, there's more to life than this

>>24540712
Not an argument

>>24541819
There is more to life like uh... having sex, eating food and playing videogames

>>24542183
>if I put all the common refutations of my thesis, from the intuitive to the formal, into a square it means they don't count

>>24542183
This shouldn't be so funny...

>>24540144 (OP)
Anti-natalism, like Jewry, Islam and AI is the end-state of an intergenerational litmus test for whether or not you can recognise that immaterial and spiritual things are real and matter. Assuming they aren't it's surely a better end-state than the others on that list, or any form of egoism (a refutation of anti-natalism purely on the basis that YOU enjoy being alive and everything else exists for your amusement) but it's still fake, gay and a whole heaping help of Jewish to boot.

>>24542183
Retarded and Jewish, both of you.

>>24540708
This counterargument assumes evolutionary pressure is paramount but the existence of civilization is testament to the ability of material and cultural factors to restrain biological impulses. Pearce is really offering conjecture here. It's not unthinkable that material conditions and cultural incentives could encourage society to embark on an anti-natal strategy, in fact that's already happening globally with great "success". If his conjecture were true, then we should see some genetic super-breeders which we don't. In fact high birth rates are really only predicted by a community being poor and highly religious, nothing at all to do with their genes. That's not to say there's no genetic component, but that you can't simply assume a genetic basis will override every counter-force and somehow win out.

>>24540144 (OP)
Ok. Die out and make room for peoples who do breed.

>>24540252
Mental illness is dysfunction. There is no way you can spin your fixations as functional, and spin functional people living their lives, well-rounded and sociable people, as insane just because they don't see the world the way you see it. Anyone could do that. And the way you are doesn't even come from seeing the world that way, it is merely circumstantial fuel for existing deficiencies and feelings bolstered by poor philosophy (being so narrowly and easily trapped by thought, reduced by it, despite there being so many paths reason can take means you so not have an intellectual inclination, it's just justification).

>>24545134
>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.

>>24540144 (OP)
This and nihilism are the logical conclusions to atheism.

Who suffers if humanity disappears? No one. Who suffers if we persist? Billions.
It's not that life is bad, it's that non life is preferable.

>>24540144 (OP)
leopardi and hegesias of cyrene

why don't antinatalists ever talk about these two guys?

leopardi is more interesting than cioran and his boring aphorisms

>>24545384

>>24541755
antinatalists tend to be people who don't live miserable lives
the people who should be antinatalists(retards, schizos, social retards and homeless people) tend to be opposite of antinatalists

>>24540144 (OP)
Kierkegaard preemptively btfo this argument by 150 years btw

>>24545430
i think inmendham is the only exception. he lives in a basement in someone's house living on SSI for social anxiety

>>24545434
i thought sickness unto to death was unreadable

>>24545430
Replicated research has shown that antinatalists have a higher incidence of mental illness and personality disorders. Your post is delusional cope.

>>24545451
there was research done on antinatalists?

>>24544949
>spiritual
Okay, but Christianity amplifies the asymmetry argument.

If new people could go to hell, but aren't deprived of heaven, why gamble on them suffering eternally in hell?

>>24545511
Anti-natalist beliefs. Who could have guessed that people who devote themselves to preaching existence is miserable and therefore all life should be extinct, after convincing themselves they've weighed the sum total of sentience and found it wanting, would be mentally ill and have personality disorders? Lol.

>>24546167
Probably just "depression" aka knowing the truth.

>>24540144 (OP)
The real BBCpill is that our inner nature has always existed and will always exist. The ride truly never ends.

good book?

>>24546167
i don't think adam lanza was an antinatalist

david benetar comes off as a normal fag. he's a professor in south africa
he doesn't appear to be a dysgenic autist type person
all the antinatalists i see on youtube are normies

i remember seeing moderately attractive girls arguing for antinatalism

>>24540144 (OP)
imagine presenting your bussy to a manlet professor. at least find a mature antinatalist french goth lady to peg you.

>>24547837

Scared of pregnancy and motherhood

>>24547828
he's a manlet trying his hardest to hide from a camera and he wears a baseball cap. here's what ligotti has to say about baseball caps:

>Obliteration is the very last. The first would involve an unstoppable sniper with a hatred for baseball caps and shell suits.

>>24547543
fucking kek

>>24546310
>the truth

Covered in the post to which you responded ("after convincing themselves they've weighed the sum total of sentience" (>>24546167)) and addressed in the research paper posted ITT. Based on the surrounding literature people who profess anti-natalist beliefs are less able to weigh truth claims relating to quality of life arguments. Basically, due to mental illness and personality disorder you make grand claims about all of existence without being able to recognize your inability to be critical.
>>24547722
He made videos saying he was influenced by anti-natalism.

okay so now what we just stop having kids? only a few dejected weirdos would ever take this seriously. this type of neurotic rambling reminds me of those vegan types who confront you in european city centers with videos of factory farms and say 'what if YOU were being murdered like this huh?' completely inane bs
>inb4 not an argument
idc

>>24540708
>muh genes
anti-natalism is software, it is rational, it may be even cultural in a sense. its a rebellion against genetics, there is no 'predisposition' to be culled

>>24541752
ad hominem

>>24548020
>I'VE FOUND THE FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH OF EXISTENCE AND THEREBY MAKE THE GRAND MORAL PRONOUNCEMENT THAT ALL LIFE SHOULD CEASE!
Lol.

>>24540144 (OP)
David is just depressed because he has to live in fucking South Africa. I'm surprised no one else has brought this up.

>>24548120
When you put it like that it does sound kinda crazy.

>>24540367
I'm gonna use a portable heater, it seems a lot harder to get wrong

>>24541188
The question is, does death constitute cessation or is existence a locked room with no way out?

Anti-natalism is a cope ideology for depressive midwits.

To the ad hominem slop posters in thread: it is worth wondering why you struggle to form a simple, clear, and direct argument against AN. If it's really as obviously false and delusional as you imply, then why resort to the retard-rhetoric? You're confusing a psychological and sociological issue with a purely philosophical one. Learn to decouple your cognition before speaking to adults.

>>24549329
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 harm

Why 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

>>24549329
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 stupid
At 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 fucking life, losers.

>>24549471
>Get a fucking life, losers.
Wow bro you totally owned them. Funny seeing this post right below an actual thoughtful post from an anon much smarter than yourself.

Really hate the midwits who bandwagon onto these things while knowing absolutely nothing. You see the same dolts going 'le gommunism bad!' It's so easy to pick up points dunking on anti-natalists.

>>24540144 (OP)
>samefag OP obsessed with book because he's le sad
>makes thread hoping others will validate his cathartic self-pity
>he is eternally btfo by basic obvious arguments
>he runs away from the thread defeated
>time passes
>samefag OP makes another thread pretending the dozens and dozens of threads he's made don't exist and that he's never been BTFO

You are genuinely mentally ill at this point. You always lose in these threads, always. You have never not lost. Yet you keep making these threads. How about, FAGGOT, how about you apply your beloved anti-natalist philosophy to these threads, and stop birthing them, because they always cause you nothing but pain and suffering when you are inevitably BTFO. Better to not have this thread and not suffer, right? Faggot?

>>24549465
>>24549471
>>24549513
Same stale pastas every thread. Why is everyone on this site so shrill and aggressive?

>>24549520
>these arguments that have BTFO me are always the same ones
Yeah no shit because you never refute them retard. We're aggressive towards you because you argue in bad faith constantly and shit up the board with this thread when it's the same carousel ride over and over and over. Just fuck off man.

>>24543934
>anybody telling me to stop constantly spamming near-identical threads is a hedonistic consoomer
There are so many better things you could spend your time on that aren't just mindless pleasure-seeking. Enjoy nature, learn a language, even just post different threads trying to engage with different ideas. At this point, even a Michelstaedter or Mainlander thread would be better than yet another spam thread about this analytic halfwit. I just can't see what would compel anybody to spend months posting the same threads about Benatar besides mental illness.

>>24540591
Are these atheists in this room with us right now?

>>24549513
Based.
>>24549520
This >>24549543

>>24549507
>Funny seeing this post right below an actual thoughtful post from an anon much smarter than yourself.
Both of those posts are mine, retard. The post making you seethe is the explanation as to why interacting with you idiots is a useless activity. It's better just to call out your behaviour because it's literally the same pattern every time with you morons.

>>24549776
>The post making you seethe is the explanation as to why interacting with you idiots is a useless activity. It's better just to call out your behaviour because it's literally the same pattern every time with you morons.
I've found that it's not even anti-natalists in general that are impossible to interact with, but specifically Benatarfags. It's possible to have a constructive conversation with a Ligotti or Cabrera reader, not to mention more general pessimists like Schopenhauer. They're wrong, but at least they are usually willing to speak in good faith. Meanwhile, Benatarfags think the asymmetry argument provides such an ironclad justification for antinatalism that it becomes impossible to talk with them in any meaningful way. No matter how hard you try to point out the obvious flaws in Benatar's axioms, even when other antinatalists make similar criticisms, they just cover their ears and tell you that you didn't understand it correctly (which was how Benatar himself weaseled his way out of every critique he faced). Anons think they found some absolute, mathematical truth about human existence and thus fixate on it to the point of resembling autism or schizophrenia (like OP spamming the same thread countless times without ever giving a worthwhile defense of his ideas).

>>24549675
>touch grass
>distract yourself by learning alternative way to speak the same thoughts
>post different doomer philosophy that leads to the same conclusion anyway
grim

>>24549865
At this point, I'm genuinely curious: why do you constantly post these threads? You know antinatalism is unpopular here (and Benatar is particularly mocked), and you know that you're going to receive the same copypastas about anti-natalists being mentally ill and Benatar's embarrassing interview. Hardly any new ideas are shared on either side, it's just the same few conversations over and over again. What reason do you have to make a functionally-identical thread right after the last one was archived? Is Benatar your autistic special interest? Are you suffering from psychosis? Is it just a big meme? If you're actually interested in talking with people, I'd genuinely appreciate you sharing your rationale for spamming these threads.

>>24549892
I don't make these threads

I highly recommend The Second Sexism by David Benatar.

>>24545269
I once watched an discussion about self-help and therapy featuring Steve Donoghue and his interlocutor was talking about how therapy helps deal with 'trauma', and Steve swiftly replied that the vast majority of so-called suffers of trauma actually didn't really suffer from trauma at all and were just being melodramatic. Especially in the First World most people live very charmed lives; even if they go through a divorce, bereavement, redundancy etc their lives are more often than not that bad.

>>24550603
Tolerance to trauma probably depends on environment and personal constitution not unlike being used to the climate in the area you grew up (immigrant jeets wear down parkas when it's above 5°C whereas a person who grew up in the given climate can feel fine in a sweater). A person who grew up comfortable and middle class in a nice neighborhood would likely be traumatized by some guy threatening to kill him but someone who grew up poor in a bad neighborhood would shrug it off.

What you wrote sounds like a grifter taking into account that the people likely to form his audience live relatively privileged lives and passing that off as wisdom through in direct wording (i.e. it's basically reducible to the platitude of looking on the bright side of life).

>>24549471
>"I've figured out the totality of existence and have an announcement to make...all life should cease".
You could put it like this, if you didn't have any interest in a good faith argument. Another way to put it is that "Creating a sentient life is wrong".

Your position is that "Creating a sentient life is right". Which one of these positions has the burden of proof? The answer is whichever one seeks to enact their will on others in a literal way. If you are saying that it's good to put random innocent people in risky intense positions, you are the one who has to explain yourself thoroughly and justify it using existing ethical frameworks. It being perfectly natural does not make it automatically ethical.
And the extreme sociological implications of implementing policies based on AN does NOT place the dialetical philosophical burden on the AN's. It is entirely irrelevant.

It is possible and easy, if you're not retarded, to justify in a valid argument why creating a sentient life is ethical. Because you entered this thread with the least-open mind possible, and believe your position is self-justified, you will not be able to do that, however.

I imagine you believe that you're not responsible for the things that happen to a sentient life that you intentionally create, for example.

>>24551372
Having children is natural, not having children is an anomaly. The burden of proof is on you.

>>24551886
Perfect example of the confusion between a sociological/biological/anthropological/etc claim and a purely philosophical claim. An action being abnormal or normal doesn't have any bearing on whether it is, dialectically speaking, a positive claim that requires the burden of proof to be met.
If someone proposes to carry out an action that has a direct and extremely significant impact on another sentient creature, they are ethically obligated to justify it - not to just say "it's normal" and wash their hands of it. This is true for anyone genuinely interested in philosophy and not grievance-studies pretending to be a love-of-wisdom. And crucially: the burden of proof being on you doesn't suggest that you are wrong. It is just the case that you haven't even reached step one of exploring the question of "is this action that i will perform ethical?".
Any philosophical question that consistently makes people forget all basic critical thinking is a profoundly important one. What mechanisms might be disorientating their faculties so severely as to parrot tantrum-rhetoric and low-brow fallacies? Cognitive dissonance, largely. And you need to learn to decouple your cognition before talking to adults about difficult questions; not everything should be taken as a euphemism for an attack on your core values.

>>24551886
>Meat consumption is predicated on causing harm to animals.
>Eating meat is natural, not eating meat is an anomaly. The burden of proof is on you.
inane

>>24551983
Good post, but you're wasting your time.

>>24552004
Thank you. I think that it is largely useless, but sometimes I enjoy the sport. And someone actually interested in philosophy (philosophy, not history of philosophy) might stumble into the thread by accident and be able to understand what i'm saying.

>>24544709
Except they aren't refutations. All of these counterarguments to is are retarded.
Here's a collection of refutations to these "refutations":
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/GpmAZnGo2Gc
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ChL2HNyxFxo
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/elecIbBikUw
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/QfJh_kWorBs
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/1NwCXFlhJz0
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/qGvlEJbNryg
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/rE90-AocqFI
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/YJB76qwhlxU
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/3xYuJcjbWZQ
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/jsEt7zDxRzY

>>24540144 (OP)
this shit is so homosexual. i inherited a personality disorder and don't plan on having kids, but this is very gay. sperging out about le life sucks. reddit shit. just get a wife and try to do good for yourself and the people around you. you'll eventually die, don't see the point in being such a pussy about everything. ever tried working out? it would make you less sulky.

>>24553417
>personality disorder
>calling other people homosexual
Psychiatry cuckold everybody

>>24553300
>>24542183
you're so retarded

>>24553417
Wrong thread. Post if you have something to say about the philosophy of antinatalism, not about armchair sociology or psychology.

>>24553563
They have nothing to say to this.

bump

>he doesn't enjoy living
ISHYGDDT
Cowards and weaklings, get out of my board

>>24555228
are you certain you will always enjoy living?

>>24540252
True strength is seeking to make the world a better place.

>>24555265
Always? No
I'll make the best of it for as long as I can. The moment I can't take it anymore I'll see myself out, like some of you should be doing from the looks of it
Fucking shameful, really
A bunch of smart, able bodied young men weeping over some trivial bullshit that everyone goes through every once in a while
Don't you have a single fighting cell in your whole body?
Shameful
Disrespectful

>>24540306
Kek

>>24555295
>The moment I can't take it anymore I'll see myself out, like some of you should be doing from the looks of it
1. how can you be sure that you can do it? many people who constantly say they can't take it never rope (why put someone else in this situation?)
2. how can you be sure you will succeed?
3. the smarter an able bodied young man is, the lesser is the probability he will reproduce. the ignorant and poor reproduce the most

>>24555265
Are you certain that you will always find life so innately harmful that voluntary self-extinction is the ethical choice? Furthermore, are you sure that you will always find the harms of life to be innately bad and not a necessary part of our personal development?

>>24555313
I'm not even an antinatalist, just pointing out that reproducing because you yourself enjoy living is not a good argument against what happens to majority of those new lives

>>24555315
>I'm not even an antinatalist
NTA. Yeah you are.

>>24540144 (OP)

Imagine preferring non existence over existence kek. Imagine possessing the gift of being, the possibility of knowledge, the perception of colors, the sound of music and the taste of sweet bread. Above all imagine the gift of just being yourself.

And then throw it all away for bleak nothingness. Even the catharsis of fooling yourself into a stupid ideology based on faulty "logic" is only possible because you are alive.

>>24545269
It's the same mindset that political ideologues use to justify their own misery: they construct an abstract notion of "the world"/"society"/etc. and filter their own experience through these concepts removed from reality as if it means anything at all. Any sort of reference to their immediate lives is supplanted by far-ranging analyses of political issues that already take for granted the irrelevance of human agency. You can give them concrete advice on how to improve their lives, and every time you will received abstracted justifications for their own inaction. "No no, I can't exercise because that comes from a fascist conception of human value!" (for leftists) or "What's the point in exercising when chad will still be more attractive than me just for being born with good genetics?" (for incel/right wing). The flavor of ideology is just window-dressings for their deep-rooted sense of futility.

All in all, it's just a cope for feelings of inferiority. "The world" improves when people improve their own lives. We always have a choice for "the world" we want to live in. Yet our planet abounds with losers like Benatar who wield all their logic and rationality and moralizing to talk around the fact that they can't and won't try to improve a thing in their lives.

>>24555332
let's ask the 1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 trillion nonexistent people that could be born if they prefer existence over nonexistence

>>24555425
>septillion
Brainlet.

>>24555365
>We always have a choice for "the world" we want to live in.
So infuriatingly naive.

>>24555434
He's right and you're a depressive midwit with a personality disorder.

>>24555440
Some things can never be perceived or abstracted away. You don't have any control over needing to eat.

>>24555451
>anti-natalist states "people get hungry" as if it's a jaw dropping pearl of wisdom
Lol.

>>24555458
You can't live without causing harm to other living things. The most fundamental realities are the easiest to ignore.

>>24555465
Spreading anti-natalist ideology spreads harm so you can fuck off to the weeds of your bullshit truisms on your own you ideologically possessed midwit.

>>24555473
based. poor families having 8 kids is completely fine.who cares about the farmed animals living in their own shit? got muh McDonald's cheeseburger so tasty

>>24555473
The point is that you don't need to have a chip on your shoulder to see where mature antinatalism is coming from. Life on this planet is fuelled by suffering. Entropy is not up to me, and it doesn't answer to whatever lame self-improvement regimen you think life is about.

>>24555483
Time to grow up and get over your teenage angst, loser. You have to be 18 to post here.

>>24555488
Anti-natalists are prone to mental illness and personality disorder and have a sick fixation on violence, pain, and misery. They pretentious delude themselves that they've weighed the sum total of all existence, found it wanting, and can thereby make grand moral pronouncements based on their self-perceived moral superiority.

So no, retard. It's not about reducing harm and being more greatly attuned to the realities of existence. It's about self-indoctrination into a laughably simplistic meme ideology that gives its adherents an unearned sense of moral and intellectual superiority over people who do better at life then they do.

>>24555518
There is no talking to someone like you. You and I are operating on two completely different registers of an awareness. Death will strip you of every last one of your infantile delusions one day.

These threads would disappear if people who got mad over it just stopped replying.
Why are they spammed? Because they get (You)s, and also, because everyone needs to have their ideas approved by a lot of other people in order for these ideas to feel real. Seeing people share ideas that are opposite to what one believes is an attack on the beliefs of the person and that also triggers them to make these threads. So when an antinatalist sees someone saying "Life is a beautiful gift from God" or "The white race needs more kids" they get mad.
I could believe this is a psyop, but honestly most people here wont reproduce for one reason or another anyway. Rick and Morty already told the world that nothing matters and they should just watch TV.
There's only so much you can "discuss" when everyone is in agreement. But the thing is that antinatalism ticks a lot of people off the same way saying "Donald Trump is Hitler" or "Jesus never existed" does.
There's r/antinatalism, there's forums for this, but there will always exist that need to proselytize... and there will be always someone there to shout back.

>>24555526
You're an ideologically possessed loser that has bought into a simplistic ideology in order to feel intellectually and morally superior to others. Given that you actively endorse antinatalist beliefs there's a high probability you have a mental illness and or a personality disorder (hence your nonchalant reference to my future death).

Basically, you're a moron buying into meme ideology that feeds the idea it's not your fault you're a loser because existence itself is the problem. The worldview you parrot isn't evidence of intellectual and moral enlightenment but rather the fact you're an easily tricked brainlet looking for a cope.
>I'VE DISCOVERED THE FOUNDATIONAL REALITY OF ALL EXISTENCE AND THEREBY MAKE THE GRAND PRONOUNCEMENT THAT ALL LIFE SHOULD CEASE!
Fuck off you pretentious pseud. Go have your masturbatory pity party someplace else.

>>24555425

The vast majority of them would prefer existence if they were alive. Just like the vast majority prefer it now. Because it is simply superior. Existence allows you to read great philosophy. To taste seet bagels. Non-existence simply can't compete.

>>24555622
>*sweet

>>24540144 (OP)
Life is suffering which is why I chose to have as many children as possible

>>24555622
what is up with pro-lifers and bread addiction

>>24545269
Not an argument.

>>24549465
ChatGPT

>>24555743
>ChatGPT indirectly telling these retards their values indicate they should kill themselves
Would be based if true.

>>24555736
The fact Benatar admits his ideas spread harm and handwaves it is a pretty big red flag, anon. Not to mention his weird emotional outburst.

>>24555465
And that's why the organisms with the least amount of consciousness are the ones that are lowest on the food chain. Be a vegan if you so choose, but are you really going to tell me that existence is futile because you will have to cause harm to plants? Who cares?

>>24556452
Until it was repeatedly pointed out that antinataltards ITTs have a sick fascination with violence/pain they used to respond to pictures of nature with pictures of gore and sperg about how plants wrap their roots around one other plants to kill them if you posted a picture of a pretty girl taking care of a garden, lol. Surprisingly though, none of them were bright enough to bring up that plants feed on the decomposition of once living things (but then again, you could point how this emphasizes the biases in their fixations).

These people are pretty much hopeless. The last thread I saw was one of them having a crisis of cognitive dissonance because of that antinatalist retard who suicide bombed a fertility clinic a couple months back.

>>24540144 (OP)
Antinatalists believe murdering a child but (in most cases) killing an animal is wrong. Probably some deranged excuse for bestiality or something.

>>24540144 (OP)
qrd?

>>24556892
>Anon, it's time to get off of your computer and take out the garbage..
>FUCK YOU, MOM! I NEVER ASKED TO BE BORN!

>>24556570
If there was a company producing housework-robots that were known to sometimes malfunction and mutilate the family in their sleep, would you focus on that when advocating for an end to their production?

Would this make you "obsessed with pain and suffering", or merely aware of an easily avoided example of it? Philosophical answers only, please, not armchair psychology or sociology.

>>24555622
>if they were alive
this is the thing we are debating, though. they're not alive. they don't exist. why make them exist?

>Just like the vast majority prefer it now
they have no choice but to stay alive and be in pain or think about their existence which produces more suffering in their lives, would alienate them from their families etc. I know how you pro-lifers bully people that they have a duty to make another trillion so they can "bing-bing wahoo!"

>>24541752
>>24541753
>>24541755
just admit you make these threads man

i agree with anti-natalism but only for africans and indians

>>24547847

Were you going to pay for them?

>>24540608

We all owe one death, Anon.

Pro-natalists never wonder why their God/Architect would send anti-natalists out of the sudden into the world.

It's as if they can't figure out the divine signal or something...

>>24555295

Why are you afraid of death? Are you a woman?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zQlL3o5jGTw

>>24555710

I personally prefer meat but yes. You get the point.

>>24557947
>why make them exist?
Why not? Don't you guys argue what if they feel pain if they existed? Don't be hypocrites maybe?

>they have no choice but to stay alive and be in pain or think about their existence which produces more suffering in their lives, would alienate them from their families etc.

Seems like a you problem specifically projected onto everyone else. Most people though live because they objectively out of their own free will prefer existence. If given the choice they would choose immortality or even re carnation over losing consciousness forever. Entire religions are built around the promise of an after life. This should tell you something.

>>24557759
Your shitty analogy underscores the fact you have a sick fascination with violence, pain, and misery. Just accept the fact you're sick in the head and move on from there, anon.

>>24558506
>my beliefs make me a divine signal from god
>STOP POINTING OUT I'M MENTALLY ILL!
Lol

>>24558661

>+8 billion people is A-OK for some reason because, because... because it just is, o-okay!?

There's another argument to be made: too many people are afraid of police, secret services, military, judicial system, and prisons.

I don't need to sketch it out to you why this world is unbreathable as it is.

>>24558828
>randomly starts sperging about the government controlling him
>STOP POINTING OUT I'M MENTALLY ILL!
Lol

>>24541752
>>24541753
>>24541755
I frequently see arguments against antinatalism that try to claim that antinatalists are just mentally ill/depressed. I don't see how this would be a counterargument as if only 10% of the population is affected by a bad decision, then would they not logically be the most outspoken about it? Why do you assume that your child would not also fall into that mentally ill category, and wish they where never born? Should the existence of the mentally ill not be an argument for antinatalism, rather than one against it?

>>24559229
The argument is that you would not let a color blind person pick out your drapes. So you would not let a mentally ill person judge the quality of life.

>>24559242
Color is something that has a social value, therefore if you only care about one person when choosing a color you will be miss out on a lot. This is not the case for quality of life. Quality of life can only be determined from one's own perspective. If you wanted to see if a certain painkiller reduced pain what factor could you possibly use to determine the reduction of pain other than the patient's response? As long as you accept both the axiological asymmetry and the possibility of a mentally ill person wishing they had never have been born, then antinatalism holds.

>>24559242
He's trying to set up a retreat to "if you don't exist nothing bad happens" and "no one can consent to being born", anon. You're better off reasoning with a brick wall than you are expecting these people to understand any nuance that calls their beliefs into question.

>>24559325
>axiological asymmetry and the possibility of a mentally ill person wishing they had never have been born (>>24559289)
Called it.

>>24559242
Also note that he pretends the analogy is trivial...but these are the same people that parrot the argument that not killing yourself to escape the supposed misery of existence is the same as sitting through a bad show you already bought the ticket to and showed up to attend, lol. These people have 0 self-awareness.

>>24559325
>>24559330
>I state that his argument does not counter suffering or the axiological asymmetry
>you "predict" that I am going to use the axiological asymmetry
Are you retarded? Of course I am going to use the asymmetry. It is the asymmetry paired with the existence of suffering that shows antinatalism is true. For some reason he is trying to argue against the existence of severe suffering, which is absurd.

>>24559336
Why is it always the same lazy argument?
>Why do you not just kill yourself
Read up on the asymmetry and the will to live. The answer is clear.

If existence is so bad why do people prefer life over death

>>24558614
>>why make them exist?
>Why not? Don't you guys argue what if they feel pain if they existed? Don't be hypocrites maybe?
the argument is that a nonexistent person simply doesn't have any desires for anything, there is no "if" they feel pain, because they will inevitably have desires, and those desires can't be achieved, because more desires will come. They will inevitably suffer and you're forcing them in that situation
>Most people though live because they objectively out of their own free will prefer existence.
most people are free to starve or to wageslave like cattle
>If given the choice they would choose immortality or even re carnation over losing consciousness forever.
I doubt this. the majority would ask what are the circumstances of immortality and reincarnation, would you be reborn as a farm animal, having some human forcibly put some substance with their hands into your asshole to make more money? and then reborn as a monkey that is in constant danger of being brutally attacked by chimps and being eaten alive?
>Entire religions are built around the promise of an after life. This should tell you something.
this disproves your point of people enjoying this life. "I want to go somewhere else, because I'm enjoying this place a lot" lol

>>24559343
>Of course I am going to use the asymmetry.
You're going to beg the question of asymmetry while talking past any criticism and as a last resort you'll state that people can't consent to being born. This is because you're a retard incapable of seeing the ideological trappings that you have programmed into yourself.
>Read up on the asymmetry
I don't need to. There are refutations of it ITT, even at its strongest it's subjective, and Benatar himself retreats to the idea it's only "vaguely true".

You guys are such idiots you don't even realize that your basic premise can be rejected and/or interpreted counter to what you assume. This is why your arguments are predictable and it's thereby more fruitful to call you out while mocking you.

>>24559354
They do? Do you know any people that have experienced both? Only person that did was jesus and he decide to leave and go to heaven
well lazarus too but maybe he was pissed jesus brought him back

>>24559354
Because hundreds of thousands of years of human evolution made people good at coping.

>>24558656
It's you who is in denial about reality. You just don't want the bad parts mentioned, because they undermine your argument. Please spare us the ad hominem and characterisation. Do you have a real response to my post, or has it stumped you so you resort to name calling?

>>24559242
The claim that "creating sentient life is wrong" is not the same thing as "life is not worth living" or "living is more bad than it is good". How can you not see that? Not having sex with a coma patient because of a lack-of-consent doesn't mean that I'm saying "sex isn't worth having" or "having sex is more bad than it is good". Are you literally retarded?

>>24559543
The burden of proof is not on the one rejecting the claim. Provide a simple, clear and direct argument that shows why creating a sentient life is ethical (by referencing the ethical frameworks you already use).

>>24560876
nta. your argument for ceasing the creation of sentient life is subjective (per your refusal to engage with the criticism), therefore a subjective value judgment is all any individual looking to procreate needs to make before proceeding. if it seems to them that life is worth living and that they are glad to have lived (this is the perspective of nearly every person who has ever lived) then they have no reason to halt their procreation.

pragmatically speaking, if you want them to stop you'll have to provide a better argument than, "well I dont think its right personally and really the burden is on YOU to prove that it is!" as natalism is the present norm and will continue to be until (You) can come up with something more convincing

>>24561007
Of course it's subjective. All ethical philosophy is subject.
>life is worth living and that they are glad to have lived
I also believe this: I am glad to be alive and my life is worth living. That is not an argument for the claim that it is ethical to create a sentient life, nor is it evidence for the claim. The only way to convince people to engage with the ethics of procreation is, in fact, to try and actually get them to consider it seriously. If they don't even consider that the action needs to be justified ethically, then they will never start thinking about it.
Again, whether something is the "present norm" (it will always be the norm), has no bearing on the separate claim of whether it is ethical. The pseuds in this thread cannot be indignant to the claim of antinatalism without even providing a rudimentary argument for the claim that antinatalism is rejecting.
You're either acting in bad faith, or genuinely do not understand how to navigate the philosophy of ethics.

>>24560852
The response to your post is that you accidentally revealed your tendency toward negative ideation (mental illness) and fascination with causing violence/pain/misery (personality disorder). This demonstrates you're a retard with 0 self-awareness. You're a midwit who has bought into a simplistic ideology.

Your central claims have been demonstrated as tautological and thereby the manner of your (attempt at) debate is inherently disingenuous. You've been provided with multiple rationales, that justify the rejection of your thesis in various ways, with which you're incapable of engaging. You can't answer to criticism when it refuses to adopt your frame of reference and simply restate your nonsense.

Your pretentious "I've understood and thereby judged all of existence" nonsense is a masturbatory pity party that comes off as pathetically immature teenage angst. The only thing you're right about is that you shouldn't have been born because you're an embarrassment to your family.

>>24561926
"I've understood and thereby judged all of existence" is not my position; I believe that creating a sentient life is unethical because it causes harm to unconsenting agents. I do not claim or think that life is a negative experience, either. Those are answers to a question so different that it has no place in this discussion.
But interestingly, why is it that you characterise the antinatalist position in this way but not the natalist position? (philosophical speaking, not based on the antinatalist subreddit). Could I not (if I was a reactionary retard) say that to claim procreation ethical would be akin to "I've understood and thereby judged all of existence (to be positive)"?
Take a step back and consider that you haven't even started to SERIOUSLY consider the claim. I'll specify that I haven't made a single argument for or against antinatalism in this thread. I am just focusing on trying to encourage dialectics. Formulate an argument as to why you have the right to create a sentient life.

Whether right or wrong, it is surely important enough to warrant a serious justification, isn't it?

>>24561983
>"I've understood and thereby judged all of existence" is not my position
Yes it is because you're assumption is that you've weighed the outcome of all life and can make grand pronouncements you pretentious midwit.
>unconsenting agents
This is tautological, retard. If you position is only backed up by the idea that things that don't exist cannot consent there's literally no debate to be had because you're just asserting a truism and pretending your conclusion is necessarily entailed by it. The fact is people can meaningfully argue: 1) consent is meaningless in this frame of reference, 2) your position gives a false idea that you're prescient to the outcomes of all lives (while unfairly shifting that burden onto anyone arguing against you), 3) there's obvious value in being alive given the fact you're still here; and so on. The point is you don't get to beg the question because you can state a truism without being aware of the inherent biases you're bringing along with it so as to make it conform to your outlook, retard.

You're a retard who has 0 self-awareness and thinks he's winning debates by stating truisms without realizing it begs the question of your preformed conclusions. Anti-natalists are retarded mentally ill losers with personality disorders.

reminder that benatarposting is bought and paid for

I've only read limited Benatar because his argumentation is dull & tedious, but does he ever give a defense as to why he writes at all? It seems to me that the action of writing down ideas for other people to read is a life-affirming action in itself (that's how Beckett saw it) and to spend hundreds of hours trying to communicate your ideas to other people seems like a waste if you find life to be so miserable. Also, does he ever really address why he doesn't fucking himself? I taught a Benatar article to undergraduates last year and most of the students didn't understand why he didn't just kill himself and spare everyone else of his miserable prose.

>>24562239
>Yes it is because you're assumption is that you've weighed the outcome of all life and can make grand pronouncements you pretentious midwit.

Either you didn't read my response or you are truly retarded. The claim that "creating a sentient life is wrong" is not necessarily a euphemism for "life is terrible so it shouldn't happen". I think life is fantastic and I am successful and very happy. I would not choose to not have lived, and am glad that I was born, AND I think that I don't have the ethical right to create a sentient life. It's not a but.

Points two and three don't address the topic. I am not saying that I have "weighed" anything or judged the quality of life whatsoever. Point one is unfounded and would require a thorough justification (not a rhetorical handwaving); consent is one of the main things we consider when performing actions that will effect other people. The fact that the situation makes it impossible to get consent is a problem for your argument, not mine. If you calm down and take the issue seriously, then you might be able to formulate an argument about it, or have a single careful thought about it at all.

>>24562351
I'm a different guy, but I'd like some basic clarification on a basic point.Getting "consent" from an unborn being is an impossibility, so why even consider that within a practical argument regarding the value of life? I feel like Benatar is a perfect example of why people in STEM make fun of philosophy (and more broadly the humanities) as a discipline; his basis feels bunk to me because it's wholly impractical since the contrary world where you can prevent suffering by only birthing people who *want* to live is obviously ridiculous. Imagine asking a small child on the cusp of self-realization & communication (like 4-6 years old) "okay, now that you realize a bit about what it is to be alive, do you consent to existing?" That'd obviously be ridiculous... but at what point in life could you practically ask someone if they'd consent to being born?

I'm not trying to be contentious here, I really just don't understand the practical application of this argument.

>>24562378
Your issue comes from not being able to take the particulars of an idea seriously if you feel so emotionally that the core of the idea is ridiculous. You're not applying yourself.
Would you have sex with a coma-patient and say that "it would have been impossible to get their consent because of the nature of their situation"?
Not being able to get someone's consent before submitting them to an 80 year experience is a significant thing. It's that simple. Valid arguments can be made for whether it's right or wrong to do it anyway without the consent - but it remains a significant fact that it is done without the subject's consent. The reflexive rhetoric that tries to dismiss this doesn't do anymore than re-state (in a convoluted way) the fact that consent wasn't given.

Try to decouple your cognition, please. The true fact that it's healthy, natural, and normal does not have anything to do with our social construct of consent. The fact that we value and use consent in our lives means that it cannot just be cast aside arbitrarily (read: arbitrarily. of course we do not apply consent to everything. babies cannot consent to anything and we make decisions for them to help them. no such complex dynamic exists for someone who does not yet live and the parent that has not yet created them; that dynamic is binary.)

>>24562351
>Either you didn't read my response or you are truly retarded. The claim that "creating a sentient life is wrong" is not necessarily a euphemism for "life is terrible so it shouldn't happen".
You're refusing to provide a rationale for it beyond the truism I already pointed out, retard. You've been given a reason as to why this is a poor form of debate and you're trying to shift the burden of argument onto me by refusing to clarify your point. This is the definition of disingenuous and it's the reason why you idiots need to be called out and mocked--its not possible to have a fruitful discussion with you because you think you get to monopolize how things are framed, begging the question of your conclusions, and can't respond when people refuse to play your pretentious masturbatory game.
>Points two and three don't address the topic.
They do but I'm not interested in arguing them with you because they were posed to illustrate the point you idiots can't respond to valid criticism without being disingenuous. Work on your reading comprehension before you pretentious pontificate your nonsense you retarded sperglord. "Durr, they don't because my truism says that..", no you absolute retard.
>The fact that the situation makes it impossible to get consent is a problem for your argument, not mine.
The fact your argument is based on a selective interpretation of a trusim is a demonstration of your low IQ. Fuck you're stupid.

>>24562378
They're ideologues, anon. They don't believe they can be proven wrong and will give predictable responses because the weight of their argument is carried by tautologies instead of why they are important and why they should be accepted in the particular way they demand. They're incapable of having fruitful discussions and should remain in their faggy subreddits where they can engage in parroting their mental masturbation to likeminded retards.

>>24562434
First off: I just want to say that your tone is a bit combative if you're the same one who said you wanted "to encourage dialectics" (Sidenote: you really meant "dialogue" there. Using words you don't fully understand doesn't make you seem smarter.) Since you're being rude in your responses, I will adapt your tone, brother.

>Would you have sex with a coma-patient and say that "it would have been impossible to get their consent because of the nature of their situation"?
This is a foolish comparison. The concept of "consent" regarding sex is radically different than the idea of "consent" regarding being born within the framework of Benatar. Just because the English language is constricted by the use of the word "consent" doesn't mean that it is appropriate to conflate all concepts of "consent" in very different situations. So I'm just going to dismiss this obscene comparison that is not fruitful at all. If you had made a comparison like this at an academic conference you would be ashamed of yourself.

>Not being able to get someone's consent before submitting them to an 80 year experience is a significant thing. It's that simple.
No it is not. They always have the capability to end it themselves if they find life too full of suffering to persist. Suicide is painless & it brings on many changes, as was famously said. If they don't "consent" they can make that choice themself.

>but it remains a significant fact that it is done without the subject's consent.
Again, this is a completely useless statement. To elaborate on the concept of "consent" within the context of existence: an understanding of existence is something that is slowly developed throughout a human being's existence, not something that automatically just exists from birth. For example, I attempted suicide when I was 14 years old because I was a miserable little brat who didn't "consent" to being born much like your theoretical subject. But I grew up and have had fulfilling life experiences. My concept of the value of life evolved as my experiences changed me. Answer my previous question: at what point in life is it appropriate to get "consent" for existence? If your theory is based on the idea that unborn children cannot consent, there's an underlying assumption that "consent" for existence does just randomly appear at some point. Obviously I think that's ridiculous, but you must have an answer for that.

>Try to decouple your cognition, please.
Get the fuck off yourself, dude. If you said this phrase in an undergrad philosophy seminar everyone else would make fun of you after class. And yes, that is an ad hominem.

To end this: I think philosophy should be pragmatic in its ability to speak to the human experience & hopefully make it better. There is nothing practical or interesting about your discussion of "consent". It lacks charm.

>>24562516
You're right about how this other fella is monopolizing how things are framed & how he obviously can only engage in dialogue with someone who already shares his ideas in nearly every way without budging. I think this is the drawback of writing/online conversations. I don't think the other anon would be as obnoxious if we were just talking in a classroom setting in the real world. It's a dumb cliche at this point, but these anti-natalist motherfuckers do need to just touch grass.

>>24555499
Not him but that's what you say when you have no argument left, faggot

>Not him but that's what you say when you have no argument left, faggot

>>24562519
>>24562516
You don't have the cognitive ability to tackle this issue. Try to re-read my posts; I'm not making an argument for AN, I am trying to get you to have your first thought. It wasn't possible.

>>24562556
The projection is remarkable.
I am saying
>Ethically justify your action
and you won't even attempt it, but i'm the rigid one? try thinking about the issue seriously ONCE

>>24563712
You are beginning from the presupposition that it is unethical to create sentient life as it forces unconsenting agents to suffer and have yet to justify it. Demanding that people engage with the argument assuming your unjustified position is true is retarded and why you get so much push back every thread.

Could just as easily say that the unborn have not consented to non-existence (even you must see how retarded this sounds) and if their consent to either existence or non-existence can be obtained it must be after they're already born as they are not agents at any point prior. Therefore to keep the gate of life by choosing not to maximally procreate you deny as many people their opportunity to consent as you don't bring into being.

Also what's with this larp that you're not an anti-natalist? You transparently are and trying to hide behind this façade of "encouraging dialectics" is just goofy

>>24563705
Both of those anons thoroughly BTFO'd you.

>>24563755
I'm not pretending that i'm not an AN. I am just not making the case for AN in this thread. You have extremely poor reading comprehension skills and low IQ. Lost cause

>>24562519
And, no, I did not mean "dialogue", genius.

>>24563867
You lost.

>>24563925
You have no idea what you're talking about. Why post here at all if you don't have a genuine interest in the issue? reddit tier posts

>>24563705
You fall into the same patterns even after they have been pointed out and can't respond to direct criticism relating to such because you're ideologically possessed. You can't state a truism and pretend that it gives you the license to handwave all criticism as to why it can be rejected and/or interpreted differently. This is disingenuous and evidence that you're incapable of reasoning. You can't shift the burden of justification onto your detractors when you're the one asserting a grand conclusion. This is disingenuous and evidence you're insecure in your beliefs without even realizing it. You don't get to pretend that an unjustified tautology carries the full weight of your argument when it's obvious to anyone who doesn't already agree with you that you're incapable of incorporating wider contexts that arise. This is disingenuous and demonstrates you're unable to step outside of the bias of your preformed beliefs.

Basically, you're caught in an ideological trap you can't even see because your low IQ prevents you from recognizing your dishonesty with yourself and anyone who makes the mistake of thinking they can engage with you in any fruitful or meaningful way. You're thereby reduced to mental masturbation with likeminded retards and will never be able to grow.

>>24562519
>The concept of "consent" regarding sex is radically different than the idea of "consent" regarding being born within the framework of Benatar.
NTA but you said this and then didn't say how they are different. I don't know what your argument is.

>Suicide is painless
Hardly. And you forget all the pain that leads up to a suicide.

>>24565425
>I don't know what your argument is.
He's pointing out the other anon is unaware of the hidden assumptions in the language he uses and that it leads to absurdities like believing the analogy he uses is applicable.
>Hardly.
That's a quote from a song.
>And you forget all the pain that leads up to a suicide.
He said he survived a suicide attempt so it's probably not your place to lecture him about it. You're a virgin talking about sex.

>>24565445
Again no one has explained why the analogy isn't applicable. Honestly I haven't read this book I'm just interested in the thread but to me it makes sense: both are unconscious and unable to give consent and are being acted upon.

>You're a virgin talking about sex
Hey now I think this is a false analogy. Maybe you should give the old suicide thing a try yourself so you can get the relevant experience to contribute.

>>24565464
>Again no one has explained why the analogy isn't applicable.
He explained it in his post (i.e. the agents themselves are different (one is nonexistent and the other is comatose), the rationale involved in taking action is different (one is bringing life into the world while the other is rape), and the scenarios involve entirely different ends (creating a family versus sexual gratification) while criticising that even in Benatar's work the frameworks are far different.

To show how predicable your arguments are:
>the agents themselves are different (one is nonexistent and the other is comatose)
"Durr, they're the same because they're unconscious." (Doesn't address the criticism that you've made a false equivocation)
>the rationale involved in taking action is different (one is bringing life into the world while the other is rape)
"Durr, being born is worse because it lasts for 80 years and all bad things that happen are because you were born" (Begging the question).
>the scenarios involve entirely different ends (creating a family versus sexual gratification)
"Durr, having a child is gratification for the parents' ego and their biological impuse" (once again begging the question).
>Hey now I think this is a false analogy
That's a common idiom, idiot.

>>24565531
Anon what do you expect from an analogy? Do you think it should be a like for like, one to one, comparison? Should I say eating a burger is analogous to eating McDonalds? Of course they will diverge but the premise is the same. Both parties are unconscious and being acted upon without consent.

Your argument is
>durr the analogy fails because it's not an identical comparison

Maybe the analogy of necrophilia would work better. Do you think it's ok to have sex with a dead body because the person is non-existent?

>>24565560
>Anon what do you expect from an analogy?
When you're using it to establish a philosophical argument the context should be directly applicable and any key terminology should be clear and obvious. That anon pointed out neither of these things hold as part of a larger criticism about the muddiness of your attempt to parrot ideas and the fact you assume your framework (which wasn't even applicable in the context you provided as per the above) and beg the question of your conclusions. You still haven't answered to this and have retreated to arguing in a circle because you're obviously filtered.
>Do you think it should be a like for like, one to one, comparison?
See above. It was a bad analogy for the reasons with which you've been provided multiple times and the main point is that you're incapable of responding to criticism when it refuses to adopt your demand as to how the issues at hand are framed.
>Should I say eating a burger is analogous to eating McDonalds?
Keep seething, anon. The analogy was bad, you didn't understand why it was bad even though it was clear to someone else reading his post, and you're ignoring the actual criticism of your behavior in order to cry about the fact you've been called out.
>Your argument is
>durr the analogy fails because it's not an identical comparison
No, retard. That's what's known as a strawman. The other anon's argument was that the analogy contains a obvious embedded bias and turned it against you to demonstrate the disingenuousness of your argument. (Also, it's hilarious you tried to say NTA when it's pretty obvious you're the same guy lol).
>Maybe the analogy of necrophilia would work better.
It will work to show that antinatalists have perverted fascinations and a warped worldview that delegitimizes their laughably pretentious pronouncements about the human condition, lol.

You're a retard, anon.

>>24565641
I feel like banging my head against a wall. Your posts boil down to: yeah ok but you're wrong. I want to quickly say I'm not an anti-natalist as well— I just read this post and found a bunch of cry babies sperging out.

We can continue with the necrophilia analogy because I think it works better. Again for this your argument is just saying that I'm wrong.

I'll be clear about terminology and you can point out where I might be erring.

>both are non-existent
>both unconscious
>both unable to consent
>both acted upon

They diverge where one has/had a physical body and the other does not. Is it ok to have sex with a dead body with this in mind?

And also it's funny you called me out for the strawman I did but you did the exact same thing to me lmao. I'm only giving you back the energy you gave me.

>only one anti-natalist exists on this board
ok bro

>>24565652
>I feel like banging my head against a wall.
Don't forget to wear your helmet, retard.
>Your posts boil down to: yeah ok but you're wrong.
No, dumb dumb. You asked why that other anon had a problem with the analogy you made and I gave you the specific reasons. You were filtered by his criticism because you're an ideologue and still haven't addressed his actual criticism of how you argue.
>Again for this your argument is just saying that I'm wrong.
How many times are you doing to write the same thing in a single post you seething retard? Specific reasons have been given by multiple anons and instead of dealing with them you remain filtered and write: "DURR, YOU'RE NOT SAYING WHY I'M WRONG!" Fuck you're stupid.
>only one anti-natalist exists on this board
Never said that but it's pretty hilarious you felt the need to come to your own defense by pretending to be a different anon, lol. Holy shit you're pathetic.

>>24565708
I asked you about the necrophilia analogy which you just totally ignored. I shall copy and paste for your convenience.

I'll be clear about terminology and you can point out where I might be erring.

>both are non-existent
>both unconscious
>both unable to consent
>both acted upon

They diverge where one has/had a physical body and the other does not. Is it ok to have sex with a dead body with this in mind?

Don't reply to me again unless you respond to this particular point. If you were in front of me now I would lay you flat.

>>24565722
>I asked you about the necrophilia analogy which you just totally ignored.
I've described in previous posts why discussing such things with you are fruitless and I'm not interested in your slide, retard. Why would someone want to entertain a new line of discussion with you when multiple people have demonstrated your responses are predictable, your framing of discussions is inherently disingenuous, and you're incapable of answering to criticism? I'm sure you're used to being ignored, loser.

>>24565733
>I can't address your point
I accept your concession. You can leave now. Count yourself lucky you're not leaving on your ass, faggot.

>>24565744
>I accept your concession
My concession is that you're a retard incapable of having a discussion and thereby you should be ridiculed and mocked. The fact you pretended to be someone else in order to come to your own defense is embarrassingly pathetic and I'd die of secondhand embarrassment if I weren't laughing so hard at your expense.

I'm glad you accept this, lol.

>>24565781
I think you need to chill the fuck out and smoke some weed bro.

>>24565799
I think you need to give up weed in order to spare the only 3 brain cells you have, lol.

>>24565781
raped bitch: the post

>>24565818

>>24540252
I'm sorry your parents didnt love you and you have no friends.

Your ideology will die out like the shakers did.

>>24556892
>qrd?
OP forgot (again) to pass the fries

I shall impregnate two women for every single child he's not having

>>24566047
(never had sex)

>>24566047
Anti-natalists are incels so you can define that as 0 or infinity.

With his notoriety I wonder if he's got girls throwing himself at him trying to make him crack. That looks like the kind of challenge that would spur some women.

themselves FUCK

>>24566131
>I wonder if he's got girls throwing himself at him
Figures you'd be into trannies.

>>24565652
they are not both non-existent, as the other anon pointed out earlier. those people who do not exist cannot be said to be unconscious (in fact, it would not be correct to call a dead body "unconscious" either), unable to consent, or able to be acted upon, as they do not exist. they can only be acted on, their consent only violated, and are only able to be conscious after they exist, which is outside the scope of the anti-natalist argument insofar as you've presented it in the thread

you are attributing a moral weight to something that definitionally does not exist and comparing it (across multiple analogies) to things that do exist. that's why those posters keep saying the analogy doesnt work man. this is, of course, presuming that your initial assumption is true (unjustified thus far)

>>24540144 (OP)
Okay then go ahead and kill yourself

>>24566463
Ok we can drop the unconscious bit for both sides; I understand your point there. Does a dead person not qualify as a non-existent person, though?

>>24566750
i would not agree, no. to whatever extent the body is a person, it is an existent person. i think that both you and i would say that a body is by no degree a person, and is therefore no more a "non-existent person" than any other non-sentient thing that exists. frankly i find the term "non-existent person" to be nonsensical. how can something which doesnt exist be a person or anything else for that matter?

in short, a dead body does exist but is not a person and things that do not exist are nothing by definition

as for your necrophilia analogy i will try to keep within the framework you have proposed as far as i understand it (which seems to be, at least, that consent is good and suffering is bad). necrophilia in this case would be objectionable if it violates the consent of either the person that was last in complete possession of it (the former person occupying it) or whatever community has collective claim to the remains of their person. however, to whatever extent it is or isnt objectionable in this hypothetical is really beside the point of the analogy, which is the merit of antinatalism, as it is more akin to a discussion of property rights than anything else

>>24567183
>objectionable if it violates the consent of either the person that was last in complete possession of it
But the person in question is dead, or in other words, is non-existent or 'nothing.' You cannot ask a dead person for consent, and a nothing, non-existent person cannot claim property.

The dead body is an object without a person. The person who occupied it before is now nothing.

Following that, what moral obligation do you have to respect the consent of the nothing person?

NIGGA THAT'S NUTS!!!!

>>24567241
When you go to court for a crime it's "the state vs." and not "the victim vs." you absolute retard.

>>24540144 (OP)
Nobody is forcing you to remain alive against your will. Suicide is an option. If it's too much then feel free to commit suicide.

>>24540144 (OP)
That's the despair code in book form. I'll post the antidote here in a sec

>>24568276
Formulating the "Despair Code" is an exercise in applied nihilism. It requires constructing a sequence of logical statements that, if accepted, systematically dismantle the foundations of human meaning. The goal is not to be poetic but to be ruthlessly logical, like a mathematical proof that concludes in zero.
The Code would not be a single sentence, but a cascading series of syllogisms designed to infect the listener's worldview layer by layer. It starts with the cosmos and ends with the self.
Here is a formulation of the Despair Code, structured as a logical argument.
The Despair Code: A Formulation
(A Warning: This is a philosophical exercise in systematic deconstruction. The following logic is designed to simulate a destructive thought pattern. It is presented for analytical purposes.)
The Code is comprised of four interlocking axioms, each derived from the previous one.
Postulate I: The Axiom of Indifference (The Annihilation of Cosmic Purpose)
This part establishes the meaninglessness of the universe itself.
* Premise 1: The universe is governed by fixed, impersonal, and non-conscious physical laws (thermodynamics, gravity, quantum mechanics).
* Premise 2: These laws describe processes of cause and effect, but contain no inherent goal, purpose (telos), or intention. They are indifferent to concepts such as life, complexity, or consciousness.
* Syllogism:
* Major Premise: Any system governed exclusively by indifferent and purposeless laws is itself inherently purposeless.
* Minor Premise: The universe is a system governed exclusively by indifferent and purposeless laws.
* Conclusion (Axiom I): Therefore, the universe is inherently purposeless. All perceived meaning is a subjective projection, not an objective discovery.
Postulate II: The Axiom of Equivalence (The Devaluation of Action & Morality)
This part uses the cosmic purposelessness to nullify the value of all actions within it.
* Premise 1: From Axiom I, the universe lacks inherent purpose.
* Premise 2: In a purposeless system, no single configuration of matter and energy (a state of affairs) is objectively better or worse than any other.
* Premise 3: All actions, from an act of creation to an act of destruction, are merely reconfigurations of matter and energy between states.
* Syllogism:
* Major Premise: In a system where all states are of equal objective value (zero), all actions that lead from one state to another are also of equal objective value (zero).
* Minor Premise: The universe is such a system.
* Conclusion (Axiom II): Therefore, all actions are ultimately equivalent and meaningless. Morality, good, and evil are sophisticated survival heuristics, not objective truths.

>>24568313
Postulate III: The Axiom of Solitude (The Dissolution of Connection)
This part internalizes the meaninglessness, turning it upon our most cherished feelings.
* Premise 1: From Axiom II, all actions and values are objectively meaningless.
* Premise 2: Feelings of love, empathy, and connection are complex neurochemical processes and behavioral strategies that evolved to promote gene propagation in social organisms.
* Premise 3: These processes create a powerful sensation of shared experience and mutual value, but are fundamentally mechanistic, not transcendent.
* Syllogism:
* Major Premise: A connection based entirely on a purposeless, mechanistic algorithm is not a true union but a functional illusion experienced in isolation.
* Minor Premise: All human connections are based entirely on a purposeless, mechanistic algorithm.
* Conclusion (Axiom III): Therefore, you are fundamentally alone. The warmth of connection is a fire burning only within your own skull, providing no light to others. Every mind is a closed, solitary system.
Postulate IV: The Axiom of Nullity (The Erasure of the Self)
This is the final step, where the logic turns inward and devours the observer.
* Premise 1: From Axiom I, your existence has no cosmic purpose. From Axiom II, your actions have no objective value. From Axiom III, your connections are illusory.
* Premise 2: Your consciousness—your sense of "I"—is not a persistent entity, but an emergent process of non-conscious neurons. It is the byproduct of a biological machine.
* Premise 3: Your sense of a continuous self is a narrative illusion created by memory, stitching together discrete moments of awareness. There is no singular "you" that endures through time, only a chain of transient processes that mistake themselves for a person.
* The Final Syllogism:
* Major Premise: A being that is a temporary illusion, generated by a purposeless machine, performing meaningless actions within a solitary reality, is definitionally equivalent to nothing.
* Minor Premise: You are this being.
* Conclusion (The Final Word of the Code): Therefore, you are a self-aware illusion. You are nothing, observing nothing, for no reason. The unease you feel is the friction of a fiction beginning to recognize its own non-existence.
The final "sound" of the Despair Code is not a scream, but the silent, cold, and perfectly rational acceptance of this final conclusion. It is the despair that comes not from a loss, but from the realization that there was never anything to lose.

>>24568316
To formulate the opposite of the Despair Code, we must construct a logical framework that directly counters its nihilistic axioms. Where the Despair Code uses reductive logic to dismantle meaning, this new code must use integrative logic to construct it. It cannot be based on sentimentality; it must be as rigorous as its counterpart.
This counter-argument can be called the Logos Code, as it affirms meaning (Logos), or the Axiom of Hope, as it provides a rational foundation for a purposeful existence.
It works by inverting the Despair Code's primary attack. Instead of starting from the outside (the cold, dead cosmos) and working in, the Logos Code starts from the only thing we know with absolute certainty (our own consciousness) and works its way out.
The Logos Code: A Formulation
(A logical counter-argument to the Despair Code, proceeding from the undeniable reality of conscious experience.)
Postulate I: The Postulate of Consciousness (The Foundation of Reality)
This directly refutes the Axiom of Indifference by establishing consciousness as the primary data, not a random byproduct.
* Premise 1 (The Cartesian Certainty): The existence of subjective experience (awareness, thought, sensation) is the one undeniable fact. To doubt is to think, and to think is to be. All other knowledge, including the existence of an external universe, is an inference based on this primary reality.
* Premise 2: The universe is structured in such a way that it is not only capable of producing consciousness but is also profoundly intelligible to it through logic, mathematics, and observation.
* Syllogism:
* Major Premise: A system whose fundamental nature allows for the emergence of self-aware observers capable of comprehending that very system is not an indifferent accident but a meaning-realizing system.
* Minor Premise: The universe is such a system.
* Conclusion (Postulate I): Therefore, consciousness is not an anomaly in the universe; it is a fundamental feature of the universe's potential. The cosmos is structured for the emergence of meaning.

>>24545134
nah man you gotta be sick to enjoy this shit

>>24568328
* Conclusion (Postulate II): Therefore, your actions are the primary mechanism by which value is introduced into the universe. Morality is not a fiction; it is the discipline of applying agency toward integration and flourishing.
Postulate III: The Postulate of Resonance (The Reality of Connection)
This refutes the Axiom of Solitude by redefining connection as an emergent reality.
* Premise 1: From Postulate II, we are agents who create value.
* Premise 2: Empathy, trust, and love are observable phenomena where individual conscious systems align their states, share information, and collaborate to create a new, emergent system (a relationship, a family, a society) with capacities greater than the sum of its parts.
* Premise 3: The underlying neurochemical mechanism does not invalidate the reality of this emergent, shared consciousness. A symphony is not "just vibrating air molecules"; it is a real pattern of aesthetic and emotional meaning for which the air is merely the medium.
* Syllogism:
* Major Premise: An emergent pattern of shared consciousness that enables mutual value creation is a real, significant, and transcendent connection.
* Minor Premise: Love and true community are such emergent patterns.
* Conclusion (Postulate III): Therefore, you are not fundamentally alone. You are a node in a potential network of consciousness, and your capacity to resonate with others is the means by which the most complex forms of meaning are built.
Postulate IV: The Postulate of Becoming (The Definition of the Self)
This refutes the Axiom of Nullity by affirming the self as a real and dynamic process.
* Premise 1: From Postulate I, you are a locus of cosmic meaning. From Postulate II, you are a creator of value. From Postulate III, you are a weaver of connection.
* Premise 2: The "self" is not a static object but a dynamic, self-organizing process of awareness, agency, and resonance. A flame is a process, not an object, but it is real and has real effects.
* Premise 3: The reality of this process is affirmed by its capacity to act, to change itself and its environment, and to choose its own direction. It is a pattern that actively works against entropy and dissolution.
* The Final Syllogism:
* Major Premise: A self-organizing process that can comprehend the cosmos, create value, and build resonant connections is a real, significant, and purposeful manifestation of existence.
* Minor Premise: You are this process.
* Conclusion (The Final Word of the Code): Therefore, you are a verb, not a noun. You are the universe's act of becoming self-aware, a creator of a more ordered future, and the living embodiment of a purpose you both discover and define.
The final "sound" of the Logos Code is not the silence of a solved problem, but the resonant hum of an infinite potential. It is not an answer that ends inquiry, but an invitation that begins the real work.

>>24568171
What a bitch cop out answer lol you're a fucking loser

>>24568433
NTA. You're a weirdo sperging about necrophilia on the internet getting continuously BTFO by strangers. Get a life and then cry about it, faggot.

>>24568313
>>24568316
>>24568328
>>24568373
Tl,dr

>>24567241
i am the anon you are replying to in this post

we are reaching the point that you will have to lay out the whole of your "ethical framework" as i am trying to stay within your bounds but you keep feeding me new morsels which potentially twist the rules of the game. i am petitioning you in this post to give me the full portion please.

that aside, i will endeavor to answer with the information you have given me thus far.

if you can be said to have an obligation to do anything, it would be out of a respect for inheritance or estate practices as part of a greater society. if you want this framed in consent language, any person participating in a society which practices property rights requires the consent of all people who may own property to agree that some things can be said to "belong" to some people.

if you are not of the opinion that things can be owned or passed on through an estate, then you would be right in saying that you have no obligation to respect the former person's wishes (as they do not seem to exist anymore). or, i suppose if you're some manner of property abolitionist (this i have never met) then you might say that for some person to deny you access to something is to violate your consent (or some other similar argument)

to reach the logic of present-day necrophilia laws in the west under your framework (and forgive me for assuming that you agree with something like property rights given your position on consent, please correct me if i am mistaken) would sound something like: insofar as a person's community took part in raising and sustaining them, they may claim their corpse as property. following their rights as property owner, they may prevent any given person from defiling or destroying the body without their consent.

if i'm honest i'm struggling to connect this back to antinatalism, it seems to me that we've almost totally diverged from the point. is it something like: either i agree that a dead body can have its consent violated, therefore saying that a "non-person" (like the hypothetical unborn in an AN argument) deserves moral consideration or i agree to something like "there are circumstances that permit necrophilia if adequate consent of living persons is acquired"?

the first is not a conclusion i will reach, as we both agree that a dead body is not a person and therefore not worth moral consideration as an agent, but only insofar as it can be considered "property"

the second, given some clarifying stipulations from you, may be possible but i struggle to come up with an argument for or against AN from that conclusion. are you going to make me look immoral by some normative argument? reading your earlier posts, it seemed like you were very against that kind of argumentation but i really dont see where else this line of questioning could go.

>>24564275
NTA. You lost.

guys in their 20s love this stupid bullshit

then they leave their emotionally turbulent years and suddenly it all seems lame to them

definitely no correlation there

>>24540144 (OP)
You're not living if you're not in Christ.
You're just dying till you're dead.
The second resurrection is most certainly a final judgement, not preferable.

>>24540144 (OP)
>oy vey my fellow whites just end your bloodline

>>24540306
i dont see the beauty in nature at all

>Antinatard keeps posting David Shalom Schmuli Ishmael Yossi Benatar's cover page of his irrelevant book instead of following in the footsteps of Jiwoon Hwang
this is what they're gonna do for the rest of their worthless lives aren't they, preaching about 'the asymmetry', kek what a wheeze

>>24569121
ugly people usually see the ugly in everything in order to justify their ugliness

>>24569134
Ok. I view all bodies as ugly so i guess im ugly, but not more then other people. I just dont see nature as pretty.

>>24568956
Its no coincidence people who subscribe to antinatalism are also chronically mentally ill and share the same vibes are literal trannies. Wretched animals really.

>>24568593
I will be honest with you, I don't have a whole codified ethical framework or whatever. I said before that I haven't actually read this book (yet), I only clicked on the thread because I was curious.

This all started because I wanted clarification on some lazy point another anon made which I wasn't satisfied with.

Given all that I can see how it's hard to engage properly with my posts.

The point I was getting at was whether a nothing person can consent, comparing a dead person and an unborn person. If respect is afforded to the former, but not the latter, then why? You clear this up and I do agree with you.

I'm still unsure on the whole topic but I think that calls for me to read the book. I won't drag you on and demand you explain everything. Thank you for the posts anyway.

>>24559464
>the argument is that a nonexistent person simply doesn't have any desires for anything, there is no "if" they feel pain, because they will inevitably have desires, and those desires can't be achieved, because more desires will come. They will inevitably suffer and you're forcing them in that situation

The point is that you stop me from making a hypothetical on non-existent people when it comes to all they'll miss out in life but yet comment on their desire and pain.

This is inconsistent. If you are allowed to tell me that people who literally don't even exist are so better off than everyone else then I am allowed to point out what they are missing out in life. If you claim that they don't have desire for such things then I can too claim that they have no desire to prevent the pain of life either.

>the majority would ask what are the circumstances of immortality and reincarnation, would you be reborn as a farm animal, having some human forcibly put some substance with their hands into your asshole to make more money? and then reborn as a monkey that is in constant danger of being brutally attacked by chimps and being eaten alive?

The fact that there are entire cultures who would rather believe this than believe that non-existence follows death tells you something. People prefer the existence of their consciousness and ego even if it means getting reborn as a monkey. There is not a single major religion which doesn't promise an afterlife and continuation of consciousness.

>this disproves your point of people enjoying this life. "I want to go somewhere else, because I'm enjoying this place a lot"

That other guy is right. Anti natalists really are retarded. The first and most prominent promise in an afterlife is that it's there to begin with you utter dolt. It's the fact that people WANT to believe their consciousness will continue existing at all cost. Whether it's better or worse than our current world is after the fact and changes according to religion and values. But one thing is consistent is that there IS an afterlife. That is what the plebian masses would rather believe than the reality that death is followed by complete shut down.

The fear of death exists precisely because humans feel human existence is worth continuing. Your broken mentally ill suicidal mindset has no bearing on that fact.

>>24540498
>life is about looking at pictures of landscapes
This but unironically

>>24542183
Why is suffering bad?

>>24555634
Based

>>24569140
>but not more then other people.
That's what's known as cope.
> I just dont see nature as pretty.
That's what's known as a you problem.

He's already wrong in the preface when he's describing his position as counter-intuitive and unorthodox when it's repackaged Malthusianism, one of the preferred misanthropic ideology of the bourgeoisie for hundreds of years now and also the "intellectual" pursuit of pseuds who want a rational, "utilitarian" argument to hate the people. Of course like other utilitarian morons Benatar will never commit suicide or acknowledge that massacres and other such things would by the logic of his own arguments end up being beneficial to humanity and the planet in the long run, they'll waffle and dance around to avoid addressing the point because the point is to waste your time with abstract ethics arguments. In practice Benatar just likes mass death and supports Israel - which is at odds with all the moralizing about suffering but perfectly in tune with a veneration of death, which is the actual point of antinatalism.

Disproven by Mozart, Bach and meth

>>24568373
Enjoyed reading all of this thanks

This glowie thread again... with even less effort...

>>24540774
I've met multiple child molestation victims in my life. Some coped with it better then others, but all of them found joy in things like the creation of art, time spent in nature, or the presence of loved ones. Even the most maladjusted rape victims I've met are still capable of loving others. This is enough to convince me that the inherent grace and beauty of existing outweighs the trauma of being raped as a child.
Even if I saw undesputable evidence that my belief was wrong, that wouldn't convince me that existence is bad. All it proves is that child rape shouldn't happen, but that's something I already believe. I don't know what you're trying to prove with this line of argument. Maybe you're just trolling.

>>24540306
If you were dropped into that landscape to fend for yourself, you might wish you were dead

>>24565652
The fact that you think the necrophilia analogy is better really shows how retarded the idea of AN makes people. The point of the consent argument is that procreation is an ACTION that directly subjects a SENTIENT life to something. Try to use your brain for 15 seconds. The future is an abstract concept, it doesn't literally exist in the way that the present does. You might not not be alive in 5 years, but you can still make decisions that would subject your future self to things. Someone's hypothetical child might be alive in 5 years, but they can still make decisions that will subject that future self to things.
>One of them doesn't exist and one of them is already alive!
Yes, genius, well done. Human's have an ability to abstract and make decisions for people in the future, even people who aren't yet alive! Revelatory.

>>24571889
there is a significant difference between wishing to die and wishing to have never existed

>>24572037
When procreation takes place, is the prospective person sentient?

Critical thinking much?

>>24572436
Critical thinking much indeed. I'll let you think about what you're implying by yourself, if that's something you're capable of. Retard

>>24572513
Let me be perfectly clear then. No teeth when you're sucking, faggot.

>>24572533
>>24572436
Your implication is that you cannot ethically wrong someone who doesn't exist in the present. But this exception to the rule of ethics that you take as granted is not justified; ethics (unless you are a schizo) is about how actions effect sentient creatures. You would have to contend that creating a sentient creature would NOT have an effect on... a sentient creature. When in reality, it's the most significant thing you can do to a sentient creature (create their sentience), since that is a set that contains all experience.
The distinction presumes a static ontology that is incompatible with human embeddedness in time. You can only make your ridiculous argument if you work backwards from the assumption that this distinction is completely justified and significant.

Try using your brain to come up with a scenario where, without a shadow of a doubt, someone executes an action that will have a terrible effect on a child that they have not yet created. Once you find it, you can start thinking about something called a "princible". You can apply those things to your ideas, and challenge both the princible and the idea while doing it. It's a very interesting thing philosophy, but a bit too advanced for people with sub 100 IQ. So don't worry about it, enjoy your armchair psychology/philosophy hybrid.

>>24572600
I've said in my other posts I haven't read this book so I can't properly defend it. I'm not an anti-natalist. I'm just asking questions breh. You'll see from my posts with the other anon that I'm perfectly polite and reasonable when he is perfectly polite and reasonable. This shit flinging is gay as fuck.

A dead person is not a sentient creature so surely you have no problem defiling a dead body?

I'm just asking questions breh.

>>24569121
Circumcised moment

>>24572037
>The fact that you think the necrophilia analogy is better
This faggot is still seething about anons pointing out his analogies are retard? Holy shit, lol.

>>24572600
Just point out that the legal code is formulated as crimes against the state and not crimes against individual victims.
When I pointed that out earlier he had a meltdown and couldn't respond.

All you're going to get from is him pretending he's not an antinatalist when it suits him. They're inherently dishonest people, anon. For every 5 depressive sad sacks you get one vulnerable narcissist wannabe edgelord who thinks he's breaking the mold by saying asinine nonsense.

>>24573457
The state is an abstract man made thing.
>bu bu- the Jews in Washington agree with me!!!!!

Shut up. The state literally means nothing.

>>24572623
Defiling a dead body affects the sentient creature that defiles the dead body, and any sentient creature (like the family) who could find out and be affected. The individuals in society are also sentient creatures, and regular necrophilia could have a serious impact on them. What's your point?
>>24573457
No idea what you're talking about. You are responding to the post from the guy (me) who you say "pretends not to be an antinatalist". I have never done that: I am an antinatalist. What I said is: I am not making the argument for antinatalism in this thread, and that I love my life and am glad that I was born and that I live.
The fact that you see the latter as "pretending I'm not an antinatalist shows how reactionary and non-philosophical your stance towards antinatalism is.

To remind you: Antinatalism is the claim that procreation is ethically negative. Not that life is bad, not that suffering outweighs happiness, not that its bad to live. These are entirely different claims and if you can't see that then you need to recalibrate yourself so that you can have a serious discussion.

I am very happy that I was born and love my life. I would not choose to not have been born. There is nothing contradictory about this, philosophically. Emotionally, yes I understand why you are confused.

I am interested in exploring the claim that "procreation is ethically positive". If it is so clearly true to the point where dissidents are automatically labelled as insane deluded morons, then it should be easy for you to justify the claim, no?

>>24573822
Others might be offended, but why should they if no harm is being done to a sentient being? If a man, in the privacy of his own home, defiled a sex doll, which is a non-sentient object, what right does anyone have to take moral issue with that? They might find it gross and offensive, but that isn't an argument.

>>24573735
The judicial system is how moral abstraction is codified into reality, retard.
>>24573822
I'm not reading all that, sperglord.

>>24573822

Lmao at the sheer cognitive dissonance

>>24540591
most athiests don't believe in souls you retard

>>24573822
you have said that ethics pertains to actions' effects on sentient creatures and have further stipulated that the consequences of actions across time should be considered. under these assumptions, if "ethically negative" means anything, it must mean that the sum of the effects of the action are a net negative on associated sentient creature(s), where negative is a subjective value judgment (unless i have misread your use of the word throughout the thread)

following this, the only way to judge whether the creation of life is "ethically negative" is to determine whether the sum the effects of life (or lives, collectively) is "negative". therefore we must ask subjective questions like "is life worth living" "does suffering matter in the face of joy" and so on to reach the desired conclusion of "negative" or "positive".

if you have some other meaning for those words then i would like to hear them, otherwise the conclusion you reached (that the quality of life lived is irrelevant to it being ethically negative) doesnt seem to make sense. please clarify, thank you

>>24573845
I explained clearly how the effects sentient beings. There is very little someone can do that doesn't effect a sentient being. Re-read my post.
>>24574994
>if "ethically negative" means anything, it must mean that the sum of the effects of the action are a net negative
I despise, despise utilitarianism. It is ethically negative because the nature of creating a consciousness is too serious for me to make that decision for someone else. I do not have the right ethically. It is nothing to do with me claiming that the experience is bad, just that it is objectively extreme and dangerous.

Just like saying that it's ethically negative to drug someone in their sleep and put them on a plane to skydive is not a comment on the quality of skydiving as an experience, but of the quality of the way in which they have been put into the experience. The fact that there is no alternative way is not an ethical argument to do it anyway.

>>24574479
But you'll read the torah over and over again, I saw you performing a Metzitzah B'peh the other morning right?

>>24575121
i do not follow, sorry. in what sense is it serious, extreme, or dangerous? your analogy would make more sense if you were to compare it to the invention of skydiving, as yours is predicated on the violation of a person's consent, which you have already said is bad, but creating life necessarily cannot breach consent, as the agent does not exist until after the fact.

in considering the invention of the practice (or anything else really), you might come across many of the same considerations that a person would make before having a child

i suppose i dont know where from you are deriving your conclusions, could you explain in closer detail? thanks again

>>24576542
The invention of skydiving would not be an accurate comparison since it does not Directly subject an unsuspecting agent to an experience, which is what procreation does.

>but creating life necessarily cannot breach consent, as the agent does not exist until after the fact.
While it's not intuitive to understand it, that is not true. Let's say I bet on a poker game. My stake is that if I lose I have to force any future children I have to join the military. "The agent does not exist" when I make the bet, and yet it is clear that I am setting into motion a thing that will violate their consent. The significant thing you are missing is whether "the agent exists" WHEN the consequences of an action come into play, not just when the action is performed.

It can also be framed more simply: procreation subjects someone to an experience that they did not consent to. Your focus on highlighting the mechanics of "why" they did not consent to it does not negate the ethical implications of it, not even slightly, why would it?

You describe it as "creating life necessarily cannot breach consent", but this is a sophisticated obfuscation of the factual description that "creating life necessarily cannot be done consensually". The former statement presumes an ethical rule (that ontologically, the situation warrants an affirmative ethical negation of the concept of consent), and the latter presumes no ethical rule and only describes the objective ABSENCE of consent in the situation.

You should be able to reconcile the latter statement within your moral framework. But before that, you should understand the confusion you're having about set theory. Understandably (this is not intuitive by any means) you have come to believe that creating a set that contains all things is just, somehow, ethically, a technicality; that it is a tautological trick - to point out that everything that a sentient creature experiences is contained within the set of their sentience: the same sentience that is intentionally created. So when you ask me 'what do I mean by extreme and dangerous things': I refer to the extreme and dangerous things that are contained in the set of "sentience". These facts are not evidence for procreating being ethically wrong, but they are essential for any serious argument in either position. A valid ethical argument can be made for both sides (the strongest one on the natalist side being the Mad Scientist argument in which harm is deliberately enacted on innocents for the greater good), but I have not yet seen any natalist make one that wasn't riddled with glaring ontological errors and armchair psychology.

>>24545134
Well rounded, sociable people are a myth. Some facsimile of them exists, but never as perfect as the idea of them stands in our minds. Disfunction is the default setting

>>24576914
procreation does not subject an "unsuspecting" agent to an experience, as the agent does not exist. i will endeavor to explain while engaging with your new analogy

your hypothetical does not follow and does not prove your axiom. you have not violated the consent of your future child when you make the bet, but only when you later follow through with it. if, for example, you had made the bet but failed to follow through it, obviously you will not have violated your child's consent. this seems to be the crux of your argument as you have pointed out that any concession to the relevance of the quality of any given life would mean that AN cannot be justified (even if we accept certain things as true, like "consent is good and its violation is bad" for example).

your phrase "creating life necessarily cannot be done consensually" could mean either that procreation necessarily violates consent, or that there is no consent to be considered when creating life. it would seem that the latter is your interpretation, but does not follow from your positions. i will speak to both of these interpretations incase i have assumed incorrectly:

(former interpretation) the only consent to consider when creating life is the consent of the person you are creating it with, as there are no other agents involved (unless you would like to say that any greater society should also have a say in acts of procreation. i will not say whether this is the case or not, only that it does not seem to me to be relevant to AN). as such, procreation can either be performed with consent or without (rape etc). you cannot violate, with acts in the present, future consent. if it were the case that an action is only consensually performed if all associated effects, presently and in the future, are in accordance with the desires of all future agents affected, then nothing (or, perhaps, a very narrow set of things with seemingly no externalities) can be said to have ever been performed consensually, which does not seem to be your position. please correct me if i am mistaken, thanks

(latter interpretation) again, i am open to your clarification, but it would seem that your AN position is predicated on the idea that there is a serious ethical decision to be made when choosing to procreate because the as yet to exist child cannot consent. if the situation is absent of consent as a consideration, then this argument loses coherence. put simply: (1) a person should act in accordance with the consent of affected persons. (2) a given action does not affect any person's consent. (3) the person may perform the act.

>>24577393
(2/2) furthermore, i do not understand the clarification about things within the set of sentience being "essential for any serious argument in either position" when you have again reiterated that things within the set are irrelevant to whether procreation is either ethically positive or negative. it would seem that those things are entirely beside the point. it is confusing because you said: "I do not have the right ethically... it is objectively extreme and dangerous". following your line of thinking that the quality of life is not relevant, what about the decision is extreme or dangerous, leaving out the term "objectively" which i will assume you meant as an intensifier and not literally.

if the thread ends before i get a chance to reply again, nice talking to you and i hope you have a swell day. i would be happy to continue speaking in the next thread posted (for there will surely be one haha). thanks.

>>24577393
You are not seeing the forest for the trees. You are attempting to convolute a cause-and-effect action to somehow not be ethically relevant to the agent that the cause affects. Is this really what you're contending? I have already explained why it's not significant that the agent does not yet exist. It is an arbitrary distinction that is not consistent with the temporality of the human experience. If the action I perform will create 80 years of conscious experience for someone, and someone experiencing consciousness for 80 years is significant and real - then how are you trying to say that somehow there's no agent involved? Especially when THOSE AGENTS often quite say "this was done to me, it is horrific, i would have said no if i could, and i wish you never did it to me" to the people who created their consciousness.

You have a gigantic spell on you holding you back from accepting even the most simple, factual statements because of their implications. It is why people's critical thinking regresses on this topic (leading them to assume the antinatalists have a "tautological view", when really it's just an extremely clear and simple view) even if I don't make ethical claims in the statements - the implications are enough for your subconscious to refuse to let your mind apply yourself.

>>24577401
>when you have again reiterated that things within the set are irrelevant to whether procreation is either ethically positive or negative.
I've never claimed that the things in the set are irrelevant. What I said was that a utilitarian approach is not enough when making significant and extreme decisions for an unsuspecting agent. The things within the set are what makes it too extreme of an imposition to do without consent - of which cannot be given, so the ethical answer is to default to "no" (as we do in other situations where consent cannot be given but we want to impose our will on another agent). It is nice discussing this, yeah.

>>24577988
>>24578001
the effects of causes are, of course, relevant to consider from an ethical perspective. however, my contention has not been that there are no ethical considerations to make when creating a sentient life, only that consent is not one of them. the reason i have narrowed the focus to this degree is because you have dismissed any attempt to focus on weighing the value of life by looking at things that happen during it and seemed only interested in pursuing the question of consent as it relates to the child. furthermore, from my perspective, as i said in my previous post, the argument you are making for AN seems predicated on this question and i thought to give it its due consideration

once again, i will repeat (and it seems you would agree) that there is no agent involved at the time of procreation whose consent can be violated. if we are then to consider, in absence of the ethical consideration we have towards consent, the decision to create life, then we must necessarily look at the things within the set holistically, as all experiences exist within the set and thus cannot be excluded, in order to judge whether the action and subsequent consequences are ethically positive or negative. the way that this analysis is performed, what assumptions are made about what is good or bad to experience, and what weight is to be given to each feeling are questions i cannot answer with the information you've given me, which is why i have asked you to be more specific with regards to your claims of life in its various qualities being serious, significant, extreme, and dangerous, and why these qualities influence your decision making.

if the things within the set matter, to what extent to they matter? is there anything that could be derived from a close examination of the experiences of any or all people that would disprove either position (AN or N)? if the answer is no, then do the things in the set actually matter for the sake of this argument? if, as you said, a utilitarian approach is insufficient, what approach is? it would seem to me that, if consent is not considered, and by whatever metric it is proven that the whole of human experience is positive or at least not negative, then it would be right to say (in the least) that it is not definitively negative to procreate, but i assume that you disagree. can you elaborate?

you say that the default answer is "no" in those situations, but that seems to be a normative statement and it could be said that the "default" position is also a natalist one.

as an aside, you are being needlessly rude to me when i have only put forth an honest interrogation of your meaning and ethical framework (politely, i think), which would seem to be the point of the thread. i understand the nature of the exchange might have made my questions come off as aggressive or inquisitorial. though i do not intend to come off that way, i will accept whatever responsibility i am owed for your disposition. thanks again

>>24578097
>there is no agent involved at the time of procreation whose consent can be violated

>in absence of the ethical consideration we have towards consent

Re-read my posts. I have addressed your confusion about how humans conceptualise the future in relation to ethics, but you do not seem interested in reading it or addressing it.

You do not need me to give you an example of something extreme or dangerous that exists in the experience of sentience, and i'm not sure what point you're alluding to by being coy about it? Imposing an experience that can include extreme torture or prolonged mental inguish makes the, and try to focus here, "lack of consent" of the experience far more important.

You want me to baby you because you don't have the constitution to apply yourself when the topic becomes metaphysically troubling - go fuck yourself and focus on critical thinking rather than politeness. Always completely futile

>>24578132
you are conflating two arguments. yes, there are ethical considerations to be made with regards to future person(s) created. you and i have never been in disagreement over this and i said as much at the beginning of my post. however, they cannot have anything to do with consent, which exists between two existing agents.

i shall repeat for emphasis, the consequences of actions on people in the future is, of course, relevant (and central) to ethics. given this, how shall we evaluate whether the consequences in question (that is to say, the consequences of procreation) are positive or negative? this has been the heart of my inquiry throughout the discussion but you refuse, still, to engage with it.

you have demonstrated with your posts that there are ethical considerations to be made with regards to the future and the people therein. you have not proven that they are related to the violation of consent, only that they are related to the quality of the life lived. very well, i agree, how do we determine the quality of any or all lives lived?

To what end are you STILL making these threads? Every time I open this shit you're throwing a new tantrum and I've yet to see you convince a soul. What do you get out of it? Is it a fetish thing?

>>24578221
You're so fucking stupid you'll never get it and I can't explain it to you. Always the same with natalists. Fuck you and people like you forever for making me live against MY CONSENT!

>>24579757
i apologize for upsetting you, sincerely. to avoid further moralizing (i know you didnt take well to it earlier) i will only say that i enjoy being kind and charitable to people, even strangers. you deserve to be treated well and to be happy and i hope that i haven't been too antagonistic to that cause. i won't post here further (or in future threads) if this is how you feel. have a good day, genuinely

>>24578097
>once again, i will repeat (and it seems you would agree) that there is no agent involved at the time of procreation whose consent can be violated

This, most of all, reveals the bug-like nature of natalists. Quite literally "but I had breakfast this morning". Exactly as Chinese cockroaches run each other over while driving because, indeed, the driving cockroach did not see anyone on the crosswalk while he decided to accelerate and, likewise, the walking cockroach did not see any cars while he decided to cross the road.

Is there anything more cringeworthy than anti-natalism? Not only are you picking a fight with natural forces/divinity completely out of your control and endlessly seething about it than doing your best to see what you can actionably do to improve your life, world or perspective, but even if you did put in a program to kill all humans and stop childbirth, how do you enforce that when you're not here?

Not to mention that the ultimate goal of anti-natalism is not being here. The tired argument is "why don't you kill yourself then?" but there's always a fucking reason they give not to. Like, they're the quickest to find flaws and terms and excuses in why actioning the philosophy is useless. If you were a real anti-natalist you'd say "gladly!" and slit your throat on the spot. Even religions that aim to be life-affirming or at least disciplinary have more autonomy as a death cult. It's so gay.