>>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.