Thread 24656906

Has it been deboonked?

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

>>24656913
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?

Antinatalism is utilitarianism and nihilism in a trench coat, so yeah I'd say it's been debunked.

>>24656913
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.

>>24656918
>spread their misery
….by not bringing more people into the fallen world of the Kali Yuga?

Philosofag love nothing more than starting the same thread they've started a hundred times, arguing the same points, posting the same pictures, baiting the same anons, all while constantly and steadfastly refusing to have their minds changed in anyway whatsoever. They no longer truly believe in anything. They only know what they disagree with; what is everything someone else tells them.

>>24656913
If anti-natalists were correct then being locked in a historically natalist society would probably produce much frustration and suffering leading to mental illness.

so how many women have you convinced to breed with you?

>>24656967
Personally I go from natalist to anti-natalist depending on the thread so I can try out different arguments.

>>24656906 (OP)
No one can experience non-existence, as it is definitionally a state of non-experience. Being that existence is the only state that may be experienced, it is objectively impossible to state that non-existence is superior.

Outside of this, it's entirely fine to say that suffering is entropic. What's not fine is making a fallacious assertion from this statement.

>I will prove with facts and logic that more humans is bad

I will prove with facts and logic that ketchup is disgusting (it is)

>>24656906 (OP)
I can deboonk it like this - It's a pointless to think about that.

>>24656962
>>24656974
The only way you retards can converse is by begging the question of the bullshit you've indoctrinated yourselves into.
>inb4 I'm not an anti-natalist
Yeah you are and you're also liars (thus proving >>24656913).

Dismal lack of philosophy in these threads. You people are not psychologically capable of engaging with the proposition that "procreation is ethically wrong" without resorting to ad hominem or moving the question to a sociological framework.
Try to justify, using and citing your existing ethical principles, the claim that "procreation is ethically correct". If you have the constitution and are genuinely interested in philosophy.

doesn't he have children?

>>24656991
Ridiculous assertion. You only need to think of an extreme thought experiment to realise that this is nonsense: Imagine a scenario where it is guaranteed that any children X has will be immediately and slowly tortured to death over the period of a year. If we take your axiom, that non-existence cannot be said to be superior, as correct then X abstaining from having any children would not result in a superior outcome for the child.

Your issue is most likely a presumption that if someone doesn't exist now, then their potential future experiences cannot be compared to non-existence. This is a mistake, you're taking a technical fact about reality and erroneously extrapolating it into existing ethical frameworks. We live in temporal lives, no one currently exists in the future regardless of whether they currently exist in the present.

I may or may not exist in 10 years, just like someone who doesn't exist right now may or may not exist in 10 years. It's the reasonable likelihood of when and whether they will exist in the future that informs ethical decisions. The technicality you're describing does not refute the antinatalist position, but just details a feature of reality that you believe acts as a significant distinction and therefore warrants a significant exception to well-established ethical rules.

>>24656906 (OP)
the title in itself is a humongous pile of bullshit the size of planet earth

>>24656974
If anti-natalists were correct then existing would probably produce much frustration and suffering leading to mental illness.

>>24657124
>Your issue is most likely a presumption that if someone doesn't exist now, then their potential future experiences cannot be compared to non-existence.
Benatar's asymmetry argument actually requires exactly this proposition, but only for qualitatively good states. His justification for the "asymmetry" (which is a euphemism for the more apt phrase "double standard") is based entirely on ethical intuitionist epistemology. His argument actually serves as an excellent critique of intuitionist methodology.

>>24657071
It's not really philosophy though. You're not going to "prove" that procreation is bad any more than you can prove jazz is bad. It's just a matter of preference and temperament. Anti-natalists autistically think logic can convince anybody not to have kids but that's not how the motivation works. People want to have kids because they just want to not because it's based on some tl;dr reasoning. We insult Benetar because it's absurd to even think this way. It's s*y.

>>24657244
Schop and early Nietzsch did prove that jazz is bad however

>>24657244
So you're under the impression that there are things in philosophy that we can currently prove? Give me three examples please.

Antinatalists are almost always drooling retards, but that is not an argument, and certainly not relevant to the claim that "procreation is unethical".

>>24657165
No, his argument relies on the fact that experience and non-experience CAN be compared and that non-experience always comes out as the victor. The natalist position presumed that they intrinsically CANNOT be compared and that to do so is a violation of common sense. And whether it is ethical intuitionist epistemology or not is not material to the argument. Can you engage without mistaking commentary for a dialogue?

>>24657124
First off, for someone who pompously asserts "Ridiculous assertion", your argumentation formulation could use some serious work. I had to reread that sentence 3 times to get what you're saying.
>correct then X abstaining from having any children would not result in a superior outcome for the child
How can you assert this with absolute confidence? How do you determine that extreme suffering is a worse outcome than non-existence, and how can you assert the value of non-existence objectively?

>Your issue is most likely a presumption that if someone doesn't exist now, then their potential future experiences cannot be compared to non-existence
No, my claim is that the value of non-existence CANNOT be determined objectively as it cannot be experienced. Any attempt to evaluate existence vs non-existence is inherently fallacious. I'm not even reading the rest of your dogshit post. You selective reading morons need to first confirm that you're interpreting a statement correctly before spouting stupidity.

isn't this the kind of thing that refutes itself

>>24657637
>How can you assert this with absolute confidence? How do you determine that extreme suffering is a worse outcome than non-existence, and how can you assert the value of non-existence objectively?
You're retarded, and who said anything about objectively? Bottlenecked by low constitution, again.

>No, my claim is that the value of non-existence CANNOT be determined objectively as it cannot be experienced. Any attempt to evaluate existence vs non-existence is inherently fallacious.
Just repeats the presumption again, won't engage. Do the world a favour and stick to mouth breathing, you apparently do not have the stomach for the basics of philosophy.

>>24656913
Shit... I have a personality disorder myself. Does that mean I self-deboonk every time I assert something?

>>24657665
>who said anything about objectively?
I subjectively assert that non-existence is always inferior to existence. I win the argument. Sucks to suck, retard. Git gud

>you apparently do not have the stomach for the basics of philosophy.
>this coming from the same retard who said "who cares if my argument is objective lole?
Pic rel

>>24656913
Compelling ad hominem is one thing, but this is drivel. If you were to prove that the vast majority had undergone lobotomies, then I'd give pause - but this ad hominem assumes that the correct ideas would come from mentally healthy people. No reason to assume that.

In reality, not being able to engage with antinatalism is a successful defence mechanism from a healthy psyche, because the idea is too troubling. That's not relevant to whether it's true (it is).

>>24657674
You must have a very, very low IQ. I'm sincerely jealous. Look up the definition of subjective and objective ;)

>>24657285
>No, his argument relies on the fact that experience and non-experience CAN be compared and that non-experience always comes out as the victor.

Are you familiar with Benatar's asymmetry argument? A core claim is that in order for something to be good, it must be good-for-someone. His verbatim response to people who object that a life full of goods is better than a non-existence is "Good for whom?"--that is to say, it cannot be better because there is no one for whom it can be better for. This is exactly analogous to the claim that non-existence can't be better than suffering because suffering must be bad-for-someone. Benatar rejects one and accepts the other. This is the asymmetry. His argument does indeed rest on the same principle of comparisons not being possible, but only in one case.

>>24657668
the self-deboonker

>>24656906 (OP)
No way of knowing suffering is absent from non-being.

>>24657668
It's a red flag and if it can be demonstrated that it's influencing your worldview/behavior in a significant way it's a valid topic of conversation.
>>24657683
>ad hominem
It's not and, besides, not every argument that calls into question the character of someone is automatically wrong, retard. That's why courts allow character evidence.

You wannabe pseuds need to learn how informal fallacies work.

>>24656967
Surprised you haven't picked up on the pattern that there has also always been some retard who thinks he can handwave away "philosophy" as if it is some unitary project

>Optima sors homini natum non esse, nec unquam, / Adspexisse diem, flammiferumque jubar. / Altera jam genitum demitti protinus Orco, / Et pressum multa mergere corpus humo.
"Not to be born at all would be the best thing for man, never to behold the sun's scorching rays; but if one is born, then one is to press as quickly as possible to the portals of Hades, and rest there under the earth." [Tr.]

- Theognis of Magara, sixth century BC

Too ancient to be debunked, anon.

>>24656906 (OP)
his sister was much better
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGVZOLV9SPo

>>24656906 (OP)
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.

>>24658349
A court of law and a dialectic are not similar in that way. An argument could be scribbled on the wall in urine by a mental patient, or delivered by the king in an eloquent speech. If the argument has flaws, they can be addressed on the basis of the text.
If the AN argument is so obviously delusional and wrong, why do people find it so difficult to simply and cogently address the flaws? Why resort to ad hominem. You're retarded.

>>24657762
The fact that there is "no one whom it can be better for" does not mean that an action executed in the present does not have positive or negative effects for people in the future: people who do not exist yet, regardless of whether they exist in the present. That is the nature of our temporal experience.

Most people are happy with their life

>>24659897
>a dialectic
You're not engaging in "a dialectic", retard. You're projecting your mental illness out into the world while engaging in mental masturbation. Oh, you've weighed the sum total of human existence and found it wanting? Fuck off, pseud.
>I'm not an antinatalist
You are until proven otherwise. You retards have a habit of pretending you're not when it helps you to deflect criticism ITTs (see why pointing out your proclivity towards personality disorder is relevant?)

>>24659948
>Oh, you've weighed the sum total of human existence and found it wanting?
Nope. Human existence is fantastic and a beautiful thing. Just because you project it, it doesn't mean that utilitarianism and AN are inseparable. I just don't believe I have the right to create a sentient life, as a subjective value judgement. I have never heard someone attempt to justify the action by citing the existing ethical frameworks that we use everyday - only by presuming (without a dialectical justification) that the action is, by it's nature, an exception to the framework.

>I'm not an antinatalist
I am an antinatalist, and I never said otherwise, just that the vast majority of antinatalists are retarded and are AN for low quality reasons.

You spam these same two phrases in these threads in lieu of engaging in a dialectic, then screech that antinatalists won't have a conversation. Are you not interested in the philosophical question? Try to engage. You don't have to even have an open mind, just the ability to reason and challenge.

>>24656913
>I am angry at thing so I will derail the thread with highly cherry-picked and biased science that affirms my believe
I'm so fucking tired of this site.

>>24659901
Not me!

You can't convince a normal person (NPC) that giving birth is wrong. The most you can do is encourage abortion and sterilization. Many millions of lives have been prevented this way.

>>24659969
You're a mentally ill loser with a personality disorder who subscribes to a retard tier ideology as a masturbatory cope. The reason this has to be pointed out ad nauseum by multiple anons ITTs is because your arguments are always inherently disingenuous and revolve around begging the question of your preformed conclusions.

You're an idiot, anon. You're not "engaging in dialectic".

>>24659977
>t. mentally ill loser with a personality disorder
Life is hard? Awww, muffin.

>>24660004
You're not putting up an argument against anti-natalism, you're just attacking its proponents.

>>24656906 (OP)
Nonsense doesn’t need to be refuted.

>>24657244
>autistically think
And there you go, dropping the ball again.

ITT losers that hate women and will never reproduce are deeply offended by the idea that reproduction is bad

>>24660017
>argument anti-natalism
The argument is it's a shallow retard-tier ideology that mentally ill sad sacks with personality disorders champion. They then engage in mental masturbation in order to pretend their nonsense makes them somehow better than others (e.g. >>24659989) when the reality is they're just losers projecting their own defects out onto the world, lol.

Cope.

>>24660048
>buzzwords in the first paragraph
Not even gonna bother with you.

>>24660048
Number of lives prevented via abortion in the U.S. alone since 1973: 60,000,000+ (10 holocausts)

Number of times you have reproduced: 0

>>24660054
Thanks for bothering to tell me that, retard.
>>24660056
Number of times you've touched a woman you're not related to: 0. Lol.

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

>>24660062
>Number of times you've touched a woman you're not related to: 0. Lol.
Why would this matter as an insult to a person that doesn't want to reproduce? Are you retarded?

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.

>>24660067
>Why would this matter as an insult to a person that doesn't want to reproduce?
As if any of you even have that choice, retard. Fuck you're dumb.

>>24660072
? Any man can reproduce if he isn't infertile and wants to badly enough.

>>24660078
Then why do incels like you and your anti-natalist pity party participants exist, retard? You're dumb.

>>24660086
Do you actually think that everyone wants to have children?

>>24660092
>shifts goalposts
I think the fact antinatalists aren't merely people who don't want to have children and the fact people who champion the ideology have a tendency toward mental illness and personality disorder is telling.

>>24656906 (OP)
>I wish I didn't exist!
>Then kill yourself.
>NOOOOO NOT LIKE THAT

Breeders are solipsists, they don't care about how their children will be hurt, they only care about satisfying their own purely solipsist will to create them

>>24660102
>I think the fact antinatalists aren't merely people who don't want to have children
Yes, they tend to have reasons for wanting or not wanting things, rather than random preference. Very telling.
>and the fact people who champion the ideology have a tendency toward mental illness and personality disorder
Meaningless Jew words.

>>24659998
>Begging the question of your preformed conclusions
Again, I ask: Justify the claim that "procreation is ethical" using existing ethical frameworks. No begging questions, no pre-formed conclusions - I just want to have a philosophical discussion. You are clearly not in the right health to have a difficult discussion. One of us is definitely showing clear signs of mental illness :)

>>24660107
>Yes, they tend to have reasons
Personality disorder and mental illness.
>Meaningless
Lol, cope.

>>24660111
>Again, I ask: Justify the claim that "procreation is ethical" using existing ethical frameworks.
The onus in on you retards to prove otherwise, retard. The fact is you can't without forcing your own framework and begging the question. Thereby, it's far more interesting to get into the psychology behind why you've internalized a retard-tier ideology and attempt to propagate it despite the fact you're continuously BTFO ITTs.
> I just want to have a philosophical discussion
You want to mentally masturbate to nonsense and you deserve to be ridiculed and laughed at because of it.
>You are clearly not in the right health to have a difficult discussion
Cool projection, retard.

>>24660068
Not a single argument in this post, or in this thread. You experience extreme cognitive dissonance when the idea crosses your mind, which is why you sperg out like an illiterate npc instead of considering the arguments.

Ignorance is bliss - enjoy!

>>24660119
So you're not able to justify an action that you claim is ethical? How do you know it's ethical if you refuse to even think about it? You must be a genius. You want to eat your cake and have it to, and any attempt to explain your action is someone else trying to trick you, right? You've seen right through it!

>>24660122
>Not a single argument in this post, or in this thread
See >>24660064 and this post >>24660068 lays out how and why your manner of argument is always/inherently disingenuous.
>illiterate npc
This coming from a retard who couldn't even pick out arguments and thinks indoctrinating himself into an ideology makes him special, lol.

Fuck off, loser.

>>24660124
>So you're not able to justify an action that you claim is ethical?
I don't need to justify anything to you. You're a retard championing a simplistic ideology and, according to replicated research, likely have a mental illness (which means you're incapable of changing your defective mind) and a personality disorder (which means you're inherently disingenuous).

Cry about it.

>>24660130
If it's so obviously ethical, then justify it. The way you're talking, it should not be difficult to write a paragraph explaining how procreation is consistent with YOUR ethical frameworks. Your commentary is exhausting, you are just running around shouting about how easy and obvious something is while refusing to demonstrate it.

It's not a trick. You want to do X, and think X is ethical. So justify, even for yourself, that X is ethical. What about this makes you feel tricked sweetie?

>>24656906 (OP)
Yes, when you dudn't an heto after reading it.
At least after reading The Sorrows of Young Werther the MIGTOWs had the decency to an hero in such numbers Goethe apologized and said don't read it.

>>24660134
The projection literally could not be anymore transparent. You are dug into ideology so so tightly that you believe being simply asked to justify your actions is an opposing-ideology's nasty trick. Pathetic

>>24660136
>If it's so obviously ethical, then justify it.
The onus is on you to justify your ideology, retard. The fact is you can't and have to resort to begging the question based on a framework that you refuse to accept can be criticized. This is why having a conversation with you idiots is a fool's endeavour--you're fundamentally dishonest to the extent you don't even realize it.

>>24660147
>n-no you
I'd tell you to touch grass but the idea of nature will give you a panic attack, lol.

P1: Life is good
P2: Creating something good can't be bad
C: Creating life can't be bad

I just debunked it.

>>24656916
>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?
Say you're judging the safety of a product to determine whether it should remain legal or not. Would you want to talk to the people who tried it and had a bad reaction (or their relatives if the reaction were lethal), or would you exclude all of those people as poor judges of the quality of the product due to their bad reaction?

>>24660167
There is no proof life is good, thougever

>>24660167
And you claim antinatalism is simplistic... Do you believe that a vague aphorism like "creating something good can't be bad" is appropriate and thorough enough to justify an extremely significant action? Try again as if you were an adult who's interested in philosophy.

>>24660180
>has to start from the conclusion that something is inherently bad
This is why you guys get called out being too dumb to realize you're begging the question, retard.

only mentally ill people dislike being alive
fuck them

>>24660198
At least one of us is definitely a retard.

>>24660208
(You).

>>24660167
And again, you ideology drunk retard, try not "debunking" anything, and just justifying your own claims.

Your first point "life is good": life contains all experiences, so are you saying that all experiences are good? Or that you've looked at life and judged the entire experience to be, on the whole, good? Which life, also? How do you know the life you create will be "good", or do you believe that even if the life you create will be tortured and experimented on from birth- it doesn't matter because most lives are good?

How does gambling on the possibility of subjecting an innocent to a life of torture conform to YOUR ethical frameworks? There are valid answers to this question, but you don't want to think about it because it upsets you. you'd rather pretend that it's not your responsibility and dismiss the problem by insulting people. In reality, you are fine with sacrificing innocents for the greater good, like a mad scientist injecting the plague into children in an underground bunker: that is the basis of the secular justification for procreation, whether you can confront and own up to it or not.

>you're obsessed with suffering!!!
Life contains suffering, if you don't address it then you're not actually exploring the question. "life is good" lol, fucking retard, and that comes from someone who loves his life and would choose to have been born.

>>24660167
You made them mad, lol.

>>24660180
Exactly. If an ai robot cleaner was introduced into every household, people would obviously focus on the incidents of rogue-ai murder, and not of the 99.9% incidents of good housecleaning. Yet if this common sense principle isn't ignored for humans, it is an "obsession with suffering and death from a mentally ill person".

>>24660194
>And you claim antinatalism is simplistic...
I didn't claim anything before that comment.
>Do you believe that a vague aphorism like "creating something good can't be bad" is appropriate and thorough enough to justify an extremely significant action?
Within my ethical framework, it is.
>Try again as if you were an adult who's interested in philosophy.
Ad hominem. I wrote a syllogism which is philosophy.

P1: Antinatalists can't prove the sum total of existence comes out bad
P2: Only an idiot would make a grand pronouncement based on something they cannot prove
P3: Antinatalists affirm all existence should be extinguished based on something they cannot prove
C: Antinatalists are idiots.

>>24660228
>inb4 no you

>>24660220
>Within my ethical framework,

Then justify it within your ethical framework. Not inside your own mind, but here in text. To help you out: try and think about other ethical decisions you make, and identify the rules and principles you refer to when deciding. Apply the idea of creating a human life to those principles, and explain how it conforms. When you reach the point that shows significant exceptions to the rules have to be made, that is where you need to use your brain and justify the exception. You can't just say "but that doesn't apply here because it would end the human race and ending the human race is bad".

If your principles can't justify an action., then either your principles need to change or the action needs to change. You can't skip the philosophy part and hand wave it. Try it with the idea of "consent".

>>24660220
Antinataltards samefag a lot ITTs and thereby tend to project that anyone disagreeing with them is one person, anon.

>>24660220
Ad hominem means focusing on the speaker rather than the speech. Insulting someone's speech while insulting the speaker is not ad hominem, it is just insulting.

>>24656906 (OP)
I love being alive.
Also Genesis 1:28.
>>24657668
Yes.

>>24660231
>Then justify it within your ethical framework.
My initial comment is within my ethical framework.
>Not inside your own mind, but here in text.
That comment is here in text.
>To help you out: try and think about other ethical decisions you make, and identify the rules and principles you refer to when deciding.
I refer to the principle of goodness:
A1: If a decision leads to a good outcome, it is good. If it leads to a bad outcome, it's bad.
> Apply the idea of creating a human life to those principles, and explain how it conforms.
P1: A good outcome is an outcome which brings about something good.
P2: Life is good.
C1: Bringing about life is a good outcome.
A1
C2: The decision which results in the bringing about of life is a good decision. QED
>When you reach the point that shows significant exceptions to the rules have to be made, that is where you need to use your brain and justify the exception. You can't just say "but that doesn't apply here because it would end the human race and ending the human race is bad".
Never reached that point, since i proved it before reaching it.
>If your principles can't justify an action., then either your principles need to change or the action needs to change. You can't skip the philosophy part and hand wave it.
My principles justify the action, as shown.
>>24660256
>Ad hominem means focusing on the speaker rather than the speech. Insulting someone's speech while insulting the speaker is not ad hominem, it is just insulting.
If you're insulting the speaker at all, you're focusing on him at that moment. SO that fits your definition of ad hominem.

Imo the question really comes down to whether antinatalism is a eugenic force or a dysgenic force, since it isn't likely that humanity as a whole will ever die out voluntarily. And if the anons in this thread who think antinatalists are retarded psychopaths are right, they should be fine with allowing antinatalist ideology to spread for its eugenic effect of causing stupid psychopaths to self-select out of the gene pool. On the other hand, if the anons in this thread who think antinatalism is associated with greater empathy and intelligence are correct, then they should keep quiet about antinatalism to avoid preventing that sort of person from self-selecting out of the gene pool.

>>24660295
I guess it could also be the case that antinatalism isn't especially eugenic or dysgenic on the whole, and then the question would just be whether it would have a noticeable affect on the reproductive rate and whether that would be a good thing or not.

>>24656906 (OP)
natalists are driven by their biological instincts which are a manifestation of the will. they are not rational.

>>24660289
Sorry to waste your time. Enjoy your low IQ

>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.

reposting the same walls of text and images makes you just as annoying as the AN schizos t b h

>>24660545
>pretends not to be an AN to cry about pastas that btfo him in every thread
You guys are sad.

>>24660536
>Benatar/interviewer go for a walk in the prison yard
>surrounded by pederasts and gangs enjoying a nice sunny day
>interviewer forwards the idea that prison can be improved
>Benatar raises his voice and starts sperging that prison never improves (objectively false by the way)
>Benatar literally starts crying: "prison is unacceptable"
>interviewer is taken aback by his outburst and at a loss for words (Benatar is inconsolable)

>>24660064

ESL grammar. Clockwork.

Why does antinatalism make people seethe? It's not a very threatening belief system.

>>24660289
>P1: A good outcome is an outcome which brings about something good.
>P2: Life is good.
>C1: Bringing about life is a good outcome.
>A1
>C2: The decision which results in the bringing about of life is a good decision. QED

This would make rape a good decision.

>>24662595
>crying about grammar in a greentext
As if that weren't retarded enough there's nothing wrong with it, lol.

>>24662582
>life is a prison
You can escape by killing yourself.

>>24662629

Immediate concession? One pump chump.

>>24662651
I was going to make fun of you for sidestepping the fact he had an emotional breakdown in a park by writing fan fiction that comes off as something a 15 year-old fat emo girl would write but it was easier just to point out you can always kill yourself. Bitch.

>>24662669

I can. However, being vivified is being tricked, so who can guarantee that performing the act of suicide will result in death? Note: there is a total coincidence between lifesucking and inability to understand trickery, of life or in general. Perhaps this is why savages are characterized not so much by normal violence (murder, torture, etc.), but by this very coincidence. Rape and scamming are not only universal in non-Christian, that is to say, non-Philosophizing, peoples, but they are, indeed, invisible: in India, for example, women and girls are nonchalantly raped precisely to "increase the good of life", and scams of all kinds are nonchalantly perpetrated precisely because it never occurs to savages that there can be such a thing as scamming. Catholic, crypto-pagan, countries also confirm this blueprint: Italy and Ireland, for example, are known for lifesucking and economic crime.

>>24660522
you didn't respond to the argument, are you conceding?
>>24662605
It would only make rape a good decision if rape brought about a good outcome. But it doesn't.

>>24656906 (OP)
>>24656913
>>24656916
>>24656918
This guy is still posting AN threads only to post his own copypasta "debooking" it? Cringe.

Also this study was found to be flawed, lol. Not even defending anti-natalism but at least make good arguments.

Check the archives. He has done this like 50 times in the last 6 months

>>24662703

Pardon? Rape brings about life. So, by your thinking, it is good.

>>24662706
>Rape brings about life.
Only accidentally. Impregnation is not a part of the essence of rape. So it's false to say that it brings about life.
>So, by your thinking, it is good.
No, as shown above. The essence of rape implies a negative outcome.

>>24662713

The only accident is rape NOT bringing about life, i.e. life trampled by the Philosophical intervention, the coincidence of the good with the end, that is to say, quite literally, ANTINATALISM. Thank you for your attention on this matter.

>>24662725
>The only accident is rape NOT bringing about life
Bringing about life would also be an accident. Both are accidents, since the essence of rape isn't concerned with life.

>>24662740
Neither is normal sex a lot of the time. Also, there are cases where rape is used to breed

>>24662748
>Neither is normal sex a lot of the time.
Correct, which is why what I said about rape also applies to sex.
>Also, there are cases where rape is used to breed
This intention doesn't change the essence, and is separate from the act of rape.

>>24662740

All life forms reproduce by sexual violence (even asexual reproduction is violent), whether it be male on female or vice versa, or both. In fact, even in the most ordinary anthropological terms, the only banishment of violence from sex is naturally coextensive with the banishment of reproduction from sex.

>>24662766
>All life forms reproduce by sexual violence (even asexual reproduction is violent), whether it be male on female or vice versa, or both. In fact, even in the most ordinary anthropological terms, the only banishment of violence from sex is naturally coextensive with the banishment of reproduction from sex.
Cool, thanks for the info!

>>24662696
>tl;dr
Kys.

>>24659901
Source?

>>24662705
>This guy is still posting AN threads only to post his own copypasta
See >>24661368. Projecting your own manipulative bullshit samefaggery isn't going to trick anyone, retard.
>Also this study was found to be flawed
Lol, no it wasn't.

>>24662792
I see, another pitiful response by you, with zero interest in actual philosophy or justification through your own ethical system. Here is why the study is flawed:

A central flaw in “What’s up with anti-natalists?” is its conflation of a normative philosophical stance with a set of psychological traits, thereby reducing anti-natalism to an epiphenomenon of the Dark Triad. By psychologizing what is in fact a metaphysical and ethical position, the study commits a category mistake: it treats arguments about the asymmetry of suffering and the ethics of procreation as mere expressions of personality pathology. This methodological move not only prejudices the inquiry against the rational legitimacy of anti-natalist thought but also obscures the crucial distinction between explaining away a position by reference to psychology and engaging with it as a genuine contribution to moral discourse.

Do you want me to make this sound sharper and more polemical, more neutral and academic, or keep it "highly sophisticated and philosophical", as per your original request?

>>24662821
I see no reason why I should accept the asymmetry of suffering. Usually this just comes down to philosophical intuitions and my intuition is that it's symmetrical.

>>24662821
There's nothing wrong with the study, dingus. It was replicated and there have been followups as well.

>>24662821
>conflation of a normative philosophical stance with a set of psychological traits
They measured antinatalist beliefs and dark triad traits separately you complete and total retard. Holy shit you're dumb. Imagine being so sure you can argue against a study when you don't even know how it was done.

Fuck you're retarded.

>>24656906 (OP)
Non-existence preventing experience of pain, hardship and despair is not joyous, it predicates absence of joy.
There you have it.

>>24662857
>antinatalists have a proclivity toward personally disorders...and consistently get caught lying and samefagging ITTs
Lol, those studies mindbroke you sad sack faggots.

Fuck I wish we could banish the Philosophags to some distant, dark board. All the games of sign and semantics could be satisfied by playing crossword puzzles, but they insist on making these thinly veiled (you)-farming threads, pretending to be something else. Worst of all, they have no sense of humour.

>>24662882
but i'm right though

>>24662851
Ah yes, the old “you’re a retard” argument. Truly the crown jewel of intellectual discourse. I’m well aware they measured them separately; the critique concerns the interpretive framework that links the two, not whether the researchers remembered to use two different survey items. You seem to think pointing out the existence of a ruler disproves the claim that it’s being used to measure the wrong thing. But please, do go on, your incandescent rage is doing wonders for the credibility of your reading comprehension.

>>24657249
They died before jazz existed.

>>24657683
>In reality, not being able to engage with antinatalism is a successful defence mechanism from a healthy psyche, because the idea is too troubling.
A healthy psyche understands that life is deeper and more meaningful than the mechanized, overly rationalist darwinist worldview that every single anti-natalist implicitly endorses.

>>24662602
If you take it at its surface, it completely undermines the secular atheist world paradigm, which values pleasures over pain. I'm all for atheists reaping what they sow.

>>24656906 (OP)
If it was truly, sincerely, mathematically, principally, philosophically, familially, scholastically, &c, &c, &c, 'better' to never have been, he'd never have been.

I leisurely-read, read, nor studied that book, I'm going on the title here.

In other words:
>I made it up

>>24662602
it causes depression

>>24656906 (OP)
>Has it been deboonked?
Yes, irrefutably btfo by the Buddha: Not a single one of you are here by chance.

>>24656906 (OP)
Only people that exist can write such drivel

>>24660041
in ur mouth rekt

>ancient writer says life is terrible and we never should have been born
>frickin epic, based
>modern writer says it
>cringe, jewish, globohomo

david benatar refutes his own work by continuing to be

Anyone who uses the suicide argument has never read the book. A life not worth continuing and a life not worth starting (key word) are different things, and you can't prove otherwise.

>>24662928
You're talking nonsense, retard. There's no "interpretative framework that links the two" because it's literally as simple as "these personality traits correlate to antinatalist beliefs".

It's clear the studies mind broke you because, not only do you you lie about them, when you try to make claims about them it becomes obvious you don't even understand their methodology. So yes, anon. You are in fact a retard and it's clear to everyone around you.

>>24664558
Do you have autism? yes or no.

>>24664505
You know you can read a book and disagree with it's contents, right? If anything Benatar trivializing the idea of life/suicide via his analogy its like going to a theatre and sitting through a bad show demonstrates you're reading someone with a warped mind.

>>24664564
>REEEEEE THE STUDY IS FLAWED
It's clear you don't understand it and you're reaching because you don't like what it says about you. You've also been caught making shit up about it. That makes you a lying retard.
>STOP CALLING ME NAMES!!!!
You're demonstrably lying and retarded.
>YOU'RE AUTISTIC
We can now add hypocrite to retard and liar.

>>24664582
More autistic sperging lmao. I called it.

>>24664586
>more retardation
Not going to take credit for calling it because it was always obvious you're retarded.

>

>>24664602
>crying about being called names
Antinataltards are thin-skinned mental defectives who've adopted a retard-tier ideology as a cope for the fact they're losers.

>>24664608
>thin skinned
I think it's thin skinned to get mad enough (ur mad lol) to say retard in a thread 43 times without a hint of irony. oops, its actually 44 now.

>>24664614
Thin-skinned means pretending it's only one person who calls you guys retarded while continuously crying about it in an attempt to deflect from the fact you don't like what a replicated study says about the faggy ideology you've indoctrinated yourself into, retard.

>>24664618
45

>>24664621
You're retarded. 46.

>>24662851
I'm pretty sure you're arguing with an LLM here

>>24664626
Antinatalists have such stunted inner lives there's no difference between them an a bot.

>>24664602
Was it autism?

>>24664572
If a person with cancer told you right now that they think their life is worth continuing, but maybe it wasn't worth starting. Would you call them a liar? or just incorrect?

>>24664635
I wouldn't argue with a person dying from cancer over such things because I'm not an ideologue with a personality disorder. However, I wouldn't say their sickness automatically makes them an authority on the validity of anti-natalism you absolute retard.

Antinatalists are ideologues with personality disorders who have an unhealthy obsession with violence, pain, and misery.

>>24664661
47

>>24664661
>disingenuous non-answer because he knows I'm right.
I accept your concession.

>>24664661
>Antinatalists are ideologues with personality disorders who have an unhealthy obsession with violence, pain, and misery.
So... shouldn't you want them to not reproduce? What is your goal here aside from insulting people you disagree with?

>>24664678
>What is your goal here aside from insulting people you disagree with?
That's all they can do. Maybe if they prove anti-natalists are depressive sociopaths with their ad-hominem study then they wont have to use logic. Logic that wouldn't work anyway because the argument is too sturdy.

>>24664669
>what if there's a cancer patient who says the argument I'm making...you can't argue against them
You're attempt at an argument was as nonsensical as it was manipulative, retard.
>>24664667
48.
>>24664678
The only thing they're right about is that they themselves should never have been born, lol.
>>24664687
All you can do is demand people accept your loaded framework and remain filtered when people give valid reasons as to why it should be rejected. No matter how many times this behavior is pointed out to you you'll still engage in it. You're idiots.

Is there any demonstration or proof that pleasure is preferable to suffering? And if you argue that it is intuitively obvious and might reasonably be assumed to be true, then why is that not also true of the preference for life over death, existence over nonexistence?

>>24663046
Kinda sorta

>>24664876
>Is there any demonstration or proof that pleasure is preferable to suffering?
Go cut your hand off and spend the next several weeks in the hospital and report back as to whether or not you'd rather have been on vacation, pseud.

>>24664876
It is or at least almost is definitional. If you prefer something, you enjoy it/find it pleasurable, if you really intensely don't prefer something, it's suffering for you. Preference for life over death is secondary, a means to an end, as evidenced by people saying that they would prefer to die when in a state of sufficient suffering and often backing up their words by attempting suicide.

>>24664928
I guess sometimes people can "prefer" to subject themselves to things they don't find enjoyable, but I think that's pretty much always a means to an end where the end is some delayed greater enjoyment (like watching your diet to stay healthy), a more refined type of enjoyment or satisfaction (maybe like following a moral code even when it's uncomfortable), or avoidance of suffering (like brushing your teeth to avoid cavities)

>>24664950
Maybe better examples for refined enjoyment would be the enjoyment of overcoming challenges or understanding new things, which often require enduring discomfort.

>>24664928
I would say preference for pleasure over suffering is secondary, and merely instrumental to, the preference for life over death and existence over nonexistence. We likely prefer some things over other things because by pursuing some things and avoiding others, it leads to survival and procreation.

You cite that there are people who prefer to die than continue suffering, but there are also people who choose to continue living despite suffering. This is made especially true if you adopt the position that the typical life (or perhaps all lives) is not worth having been lived, because it involved more suffering than pleasure. Obviously, the typical person prefers to continue living than to die. Even if offered a means of death that was instantaneous and painless, I doubt many people would take it.

I don't know that there's any way to really say which of these deeply felt intuitions is 'more true' and I think that's the core issue I have with antinatalism. It takes something that looks good and reasonable on its surface (utilitarianism) and builds a logical apparatus which reaches an obviously untrue conclusion: the existence of life is bad. It's tempting to weigh the logic of antinatalism against the intuitive belief that life is good, to say, "this logic is clear and sound, and intuition often leads astray," and hold to the antinatalist conclusion. But it is all built upon the intuition that pleasure is preferable to suffering. So you are really weighing two intuitions against each other: the preference for pleasure, against the preference for life and existence.

>>24664989
>I don't know that there's any way to really say which of these deeply felt intuitions is 'more true'
I would say it's obviously the case that at least for some people preference for life over death is secondary, since, as said, wishing for death is a thing, attempted suicide is a thing, even repeated attempted suicide until success is a thing. And I don't think antinatalism requires believing that the average person/most people don't have a life they consider worthwhile. Though I haven't read Benatar's book, my own reasoning for being somewhat antinatalist is in large part just that it's *possible* for a life to be really thoroughly not worth living in the eyes of the person living it, and it can't be guaranteed that someone will have a life worth living, and you can't get their permission to take the risk beforehand because they don't exist yet.

But then I'm only antinatalist in an abstract sort of sense or with respect to myself, since I don't think humanity or life in general will ever be reasoned into going extinct. And once that's accepted I feel like you're stuck having to make the best of a bad situation. Life will go on regardless, so you may as well focus on trying to make it go on in a better way rather than trying to put a stop to it. But still I think the antinatalist recognition that life can be not worth living is important to keep people from thinking that creating hell on earth is morally permissable because the people (or animals) in hell are better off existing than not even if they're miserable.

>>24665019
And that last thing isn't theoretical. I once read a guy who defended factory farms on the basis that it's better for billions of animals to be profoundly miserable, densely packed together but alive than to not exist at all, so they're actually a good thing, which I think is completely insane.

And likewise I think the idea that life is better than death, flat out, also leads to hell-creation among humans in the form of not allowing very sick/disabled people to die quickly and painlessly, so they go on suffering for years even though they'd rather not, just because people who aren't them think they know better than them whether their life is worth living.

>>24664850
>as it was manipulative, retard.
If you think my hypothetical was manipulative then maybe your proposition (the suicide one) is cruel and closed-minded? And retarded (49). There are lives that are worth continuing but weren't worth starting. And this fact filters people that never read the book but apparently feel qualified to post about it all day.