You have a lifetime to explain why antinatalism is wrong and procreation isn't immoral. I'll wait

You have a lifetime to explain why antinatalism is wrong and procreation isn't immoral. I'll wait.

Attached: 1476049655681.png (1024x1024, 38K)

Other urls found in this thread:

desuarchive.org/his/thread/4184943/#4185512
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Not wrong, just indicative of mental disorders

By avoiding regular procreation you implicitly support the airing of Assbabies. Whatever your thoughts on the creation of progeny, it is at the absolute worst the lesser evil.

Attached: IMG_0140.jpg (400x400, 36K)

Siring*

1. Almost everyone says they're glad to be alive. Through the magic of hedonic adaptation, even the desperately poor and the severely disabled seem to find great joy in life. When movie villains threaten to "Make you wish you'd never been born," they aren't threatening to make you slightly worse off. They're threatening massive harm. The threat resonates because almost everyone realizes that the gift of life is way better than non-existence.

2. Almost everyone's behavior confirms that they're glad to be alive. After all, no mobile adult needs to be miserable for long. Tall buildings and other routes to painless suicide are all around us; in economic jargon, life is a good with virtually "free disposal." Yet suicide is incredibly rare nonetheless. To quote Epicurus' ancient argument:

“Yet much worse still is the man who says it is good not to be born, but
"once born make haste to pass the gates of Death." [Theognis, 427] For if he says this from conviction, why does he not pass away out of life? For it is open to him to do so, if he had firmly made up his mind to this. But if he speaks in jest, his words are idle among men who cannot receive them”.

3. You might say that it's wrong to create people unless they (impossibly) consent beforehand. But you could just as easily say that it's OK to create people unless they (impossibly) refuse consent beforehand.

The reasonable view, however, spurns both stacked decks - and notices that this is an ideal time to to invoke hypothetical consent. It's OK to create people as long as they would consent beforehand. How can you know? You can't be sure, but arguments #1 and #2 show that almost everyone would consent if they could.

t. infertile virgin

Attached: 2018-01-05_15.22.29.jpg (928x928, 306K)

"Good" is a real but subjective feeling and judgment experienced and made possible only by the precondition of living and conscious beings.
The perpetuation of the "Good" is only possible if we continue the perpetuation of more living and conscious beings.
Termination of living and conscious beings, especially in a manner that targets the complete cessation of all living and conscious beings, effectively ends the possibility of "Good".
Therefore, ending the possibility of any Good, by ending the species is Bad.

>“Yet much worse still is the man who says it is good not to be born, but once born make haste to pass the gates of Death. For if he says this from conviction, why does he not pass away out of life? For it is open to him to do so, if he had firmly made up his mind to this. But if he speaks in jest, his words are idle among men who cannot receive them”. [Theognis, 427]
This. All life-deniers and proponents of death philosophy are by definition arguing in bad faith, since they haven't killed themselves. If they truly believed life wasn't valuable and didn't matter, they wouldn't feel the need to convince anyone else of this, and would just kill themselves. This is why I ignore all death philosophies.

Maybe they're planning for mass suicide on Earth.

Give me one anti-natalist argument that doesnt also mean you should commit suicide. Fact that all anti-natalists havent commited suicide is a proof that all their arguments about life being inherently bad or whatever are wrong.

There is a reason why anti-natalism is the philosophy of choice for edgy emo teens.

>ad hominem
Not an argument.
All procreation, voluntary or not, is immoral. People that unwittingly do wrong still do wrong.
>1
They have no choice but do the best of their situation and convince themselves their pain is a fair price to pay for their few moments of pleasure. In fact, the latter only appears to have positive value when it has neutral value given pleasure is release from pain which the unborn don't experience. As the aphorism says, there can be no happiness without sadness. In this case, the conclusion is different. When you consider that pain has negative value and pleasure has neutral value, it all adds up to a net negative from a hedonic point of view.
>2
Dying and never being born aren't the same. Once alive, you have to contend with your mortality and your instinctive repulsion to it. Life is suffering you're compelled to preserve and perpetuate. You can't be unborn, but you can choose not to pass on the burden.
>3
The general view of consent is that of refusal until statement of the contrary. An inebriated person could've consented to sex if they were sober, but the assumption is that they wouldn't. Similarly, there's no good reason to suppose a person of clear mind (and that also means free of the fear of death and cognitive biases such as sunk costs) would consent to being born.

It's not ad hominem. It's the acknowledgment that antinatalism is not an ideology to be deconstructed, it is an ailment to be aided

>You have a lifetime to explain why antinatalism is wrong and procreation isn't immoral. I'll wait.
Why are you still alive? Your very continued being moots your own point.
If nonexistence is better than existence, just end it already. Do it. Get a gun, make a hemp necklace, OD on heroin. There are millions of ways to end your existence. But the fact that you haven't done so indicates that you value your existence, despite your words, over your nonexistence.

Honestly this

It depends on your values
If you value life
Then creating new life is a positive
If you do not
Then it is not

>It depends on your values
Morality isn't relative.
>If you value life
You can value life as an antinatalist. We don't want pain and we don't want death, so we avoid them and help others avoid them as much as possible. An antinatalist extends their sympathy to the unborn and ensures not to put them in a situation where pain and death are possible.

blacks and brown people need more living space, goyem.

But by procreating normally, you produce superior offspring that successful compete for resources that would otherwise go to Shitlings. It objectively maximizes utility.

prOcreAtion ?? biTch iam tOo smArt for thAt dUde kidS suCk life sUcks liKe wHat if yoUr chiLd wiLL exPeRiencE pAin ?!? wHat abOut consEnt diD yOuR cHild gaVe conSenT to be boRn or he Didn’t i Bet he didN’t huH ?? ..

Wrong.
Parents that consumed weed and later changed their life to not consume aren't hypocrites and don't argue in "bad faith". Killing yourself would only mean not letting the other people how bad is " x" thing. Telling people why "x" is bad is completely valid.

"Bad faith" has become a complete buzzword used by magapedes and brainlet/x/.

>Morality isn't relative.
How and why?

Different people have different needs. Stealing is generally considered immoral. But if a starving man steals to live, is that immoral? Many people would feel pity and sorrow for this thief. Does that make them immoral?
Just in case you're of a religious bent: in the Bible, when David stole bread from the temple, what was God's reaction? Because it wasn't anger.

If morality was relative, ethics wouldn't be a science. People wouldn't bother studying it if they didn't believe it could provide concrete answers. If two people disagree on something, either at least one of them is wrong or the question is wrong.

Ethics isn't a science, it's part of philosophy. Sociology, the study of how people act, is. Sociology takes into account the differences of people.

Name one argument for antinatalism that actually works. I'll wait

>They have no choice but do the best of their situation and convince themselves their pain is a fair price to pay for their few moments of pleasure.

You're acting as if there is a """"objective""""" way to go about judging a persons situation but you have failed to establish that there is. Furthermore, why does it matter the reasoning behind their judgment? Judging the worthiness of a life is subjective endeavor and is arbitrary.

> In fact, the latter only appears to have positive value when it has neutral value given pleasure is release from pain which the unborn don't experience.
Postive emotions aren't always a release from a pain and even if they were this wouldn't give them neutral value. Being happy is clearly not the same as being in an actual neutral state.

> Dying and never being born aren't the same. Once alive, you have to contend with your mortality and your instinctive repulsion to it. Life is suffering you're compelled to preserve and perpetuate. You can't be unborn, but you can choose not to pass on the burden.

I agree dying and being born are not the same thing. But if your going to agrue that life is a terrible thing it is in your interests to commit suicide. The pain of a suicide can be reduced greatly and even if it couldn't be reduced it would still weigh far less than a life of "suffering"

>The general view of consent is that of refusal until statement of the contrary. An inebriated person could've consented to sex if they were sober, but the assumption is that they wouldn't. Similarly, there's no good reason to suppose a person of clear mind (and that also means free of the fear of death and cognitive biases such as sunk costs) would consent to being born.

Your analogy is false because it fails to account that NOTHING exists before being born. There is being to make an assumption for. The question of consent can only be asked upon being born.

*no being

Science or not, philosophy operates on universals. If morality is subjective, then moral philosophy is useless and so are any moral arguments.
Utilitarian calculus. There being at least as much pain as pleasure means utility can only be maximized with pain minimization which in turn can be best achieved with nonexistence. Your turn.

>ethics
>science
user, I ...

Bryan is that you?

>Utilitarian calculus
Most people don't judge their life in a utilitarian method so this wouldn't apply to them.


>There being at least as much pain as pleasure.

[citation needed]

> means utility can only be maximized with pain minimization which in turn can be best achieved with nonexistence.

It does not follow that pain minimization is the best path. What would follow is careful judgment about the life you are going to create and making sure that it is worth living. If it is give birth if not don't. Universal antinatalism doesn't follow

Prove to me that life itself is imorral. If it is then you are correct. If you cannot prove it is then a system based it being immoral cannot possibly be logical. You may disagree but to me life itself being inconclusive on its morality is a loss for antinatlist

you're the one making the claim, prove yourself right first

bla bla bla life is suffering bla bla bla I didnt ask to be born bla bla bla my parents are assholes.

>You're acting as if there is a """"objective""""" way to go about judging a persons situation but you have failed to establish that there is.
Tallying up pain and pleasure is a good start. If the sum of our suffering (big or small) is greater than the sum of our contentment (big or small), then living is pointless suffering punctuated with death. Any pleasure only makes sense in relation to pain. Before I enjoy food, I know hunger. Before I enjoy company, I know loneliness. Before I enjoy success, I know failure. We're wanting more often than we're satisfied in life. If I didn't know what pleasure was, I wouldn't want it. If I didn't know what want was, I wouldn't want it. The unborn don't want and so the unborn don't suffer. They're not happy, but they don't need happiness either. Pleasure has neutral value as something that means nothing to someone who hasn't experienced it. Pain has negative value as something intrinsically bad even on a conceptual level. Tell me you can make me sporadically feel pleasure in exchange for suffering and dying and being made to be aware and fearful of my impending death and I will refuse the trade because the cons outweigh the pros. I'm alive and I'll maximize my utility the best I can by pursuing happiness, but this is just coping. In the end, I'm still unhappy more often than I'm happy and I'll still have to confront the one inevitable thing I'm made to fear to the bone: death. Suicide isn't effortless. It goes against biological imperatives and is one of the most mentally painful things someone can do. Living is easier than dying, which is why so many miserable people drudge through life even though they're sick of it.

>Tell me you can make me sporadically feel pleasure in exchange for suffering and dying and being made to be aware and fearful of my impending death and I will refuse the trade because the cons outweigh the pros.
That's because you resort to arguing extremes. Very few live with periods of extreme pain and extreme pleasure, most meander around a median and people arguing antinatalism seem to ignore that third state that exist between the two.

desuarchive.org/his/thread/4184943/#4185512

Attached: baint.jpg (718x720, 37K)

It's not just about the extremes. I point out in the beginning of the post that all instances of pain and pleasure count, whether they are big or small in intensity. Even people in a "neutral" state can describe themselves as "comfortable" (mild happiness) or "uncomfortable" (mild unhappiness).

Absence of good isn't immoral, it's amoral. Presence of bad is immoral and birth exposes you to bad, thereby being immoral.

>Tallying up pain and pleasure is a good start. If the sum of our suffering (big or small) is greater than the sum of our contentment (big or small), then living is pointless suffering punctuated with death.

It is a good start for you in particular but the same is not true of anybody. And suppose that my life contains more pain than joy and I am fully aware of this. And then suppose I still find life worth living and a good thing. What then? Who are you to say whether or not my life is a good thing?

>Any pleasure only makes sense in relation to pain.

And any pain only makes sense in relation to pleasure. Before I know failure, I must know success. Before I am hunger, I must know what it means to be filled. Pain means nothing to someone who doesn't understand joy. See what I just did there? Your reasoning could go either way. I could argue that pain is the neutral state instead.

>Tell me you can make me sporadically feel pleasure in exchange for suffering and dying and being made to be aware and fearful of my impending death and I will refuse the trade because the cons outweigh the pros.

That is wholly subjective standpoint your life may suck to you. But to most people, it does not. Personally, death does not fear me. And in my life the joy outweighs the pain. And even if it didn't I value pleasure so much more than the pain that it makes up for it. And yes suicide goes against your biological imperative and is difficult. But do you know whats even more painful and difficult? Life. You owe it to your future self to commit suicide in the same way you owe it to your children to not birth them.

>Not an argument

If you think there are people who unironically want to argument with some whiny mentally handicapped losers, you are very wrong. Just saying.

> pain as pleasure
And what units were used to measure pain and pleasure? Or, like all antinatalists, you pulled it out from your own angsty ass?

Are you really implying that Benatar's """"""""asymmetry""""""" is an argument

>I still find life worth living and a good thing
If you find something good and seeking joy and avoiding pain is your goal, then that must mean it provides you with more joy than pain. Otherwise, you're being counterproductive to your goals and therefore irrational. People in difficult situations can very well rationalize their struggle as something meaningful. They're not wrong if telling themselves their pleasure is worth their pain makes coping with life a little easier.
>And any pain only makes sense in relation to pleasure.
We're already in agreement that pain has negative value. Someone who hasn't experienced pain wouldn't want to experience it if given a deal before birth because they would know it is bad by definition. Someone who hasn't experienced pleasure would be indifferent to experiencing it because they don't need it in the first place. Being told you would trade pleasure, something you're doing fine without, for pain, something you're told is bad, would be a deal-breaker.
>That is wholly subjective standpoint your life may suck to you. But to most people, it does not.
You don't have to be miserable for antinatalism to be correct. I don't know anyone who is happy more often and more intensely than they are unhappy. Some people are happier than others, but they earned their happiness through sweat and tears. Even if there are people in the world whose pleasure exceeds their pain - a dubious proposal - do you have the right to play the lottery with your potential offspring's life? They can suffer and die, or they can be spared it all. Is the existence of millions in suffering justified by the existence of a few in bliss?
You know what's pleasure and what's pain and you can categorize it without formal measurement units. Do you know for a fact there's more pleasure than pain in life? Are you willing to be wrong and make someone else pay for it?

Attached: 147659383.jpg (343x147, 14K)

>If you find something good and seeking joy and avoiding pain is your goal, then that must mean it provides you with more joy than pain.

And what if it isn't? What if the things that make my life worth living are things such as serving one's country, helping others, or becoming successful and pain/joy has nothing to do with it? What makes my life worth living is entirely up to me.

>We're already in agreement that pain has negative value. Someone who hasn't experienced pain wouldn't want to experience it if given a deal before birth because they would know it is bad by definition. Someone who hasn't experienced pleasure would be indifferent to experience it because they don't need it in the first place. Being told you would trade pleasure, something you're doing fine without, for pain, something you're told is bad, would be a deal-breaker.

My point was that your argument for joy being neutral could be argued on either side. And I disagree that being deprived of a pleasure is a neutral thing. Let's consider the future interests of that baby. If the baby were to never be born it could have never lived a life worth living. And not living a life worth living is a bad thing for that baby's interests. But if it were to come into existence it could live a life worth living which would be a good thing. Since 99% of people think their life is worth living and since you as the parents do not need consent it is moral to give birth to a baby.

>life is suffering
Maybe your life, but that is probably at your discretion. Perhaps you ought do aught about that before peddling your fatalism on Veeky Forums.

Attached: 1508418390276.png (675x916, 972K)

Antinatalism is self-refuting, if there are no living humans, there will be no antinatalism in the world.

What is even a point? Even if literally everyone stops procreating, life will appear again after some time. There is no win here.

it is self imposed genocide, all genocide is bad

I'm not even an antinatalist but these are shit arguments.

I have some items of interest

Premise 1: Privations are not qualities in themselves
Premise 2: will, being representative of a yet unrealized condition is a privation
Premise 3: It is necessary for there to be will for there to be personal being

-Harm is the privation of Benefit just as Bad is the privation of Good
-A Being can be benefited or harmed on the basis of its personal wants, needs and impulses (whatever those may be) being either fulfilled or exacerbated respectively
-A maximization of benefit is the fulfillment and nullification of the entire record of wants needs and impulses
-A being without will fails to be a personal being (premise 3)
-The maximization of benefit engenders a condition already satisfied in the non-existence of a personal being
-therefore to come into existence is to be harmed necessarily

The attached chart evaluates the possibility of each condition for a world with at least one personal being and a world with no personal beings.

Attached: Reformed_Asymmetry.png (522x366, 37K)

so you think genocide is ok?

Antinatalism is ok for low-IQ races like the negroes, but it's wrong for high IQ races like east asians.

Impregnation is my fetish

First of all, it's not genocide since nobody is being killed and even if it was genocide that would be ok to an antinatalist. The point is to render humanity extinct for whatever reason.

>no one is being killed but in the end it renders humanity extinct.
your killing the human race, if thats not super genocide then I don't know what is
I bet you think what they are doing in East Turkistan isn't genocide either then.

How is not giving birth the same as, say, the holocaust?

its not the same thing exactly, but it is the same type of act with the same type of outcome, the eradication of some or all people under a certain catagory of people. In your case, the catagory being all.

But it's not murder. Nobody is being killed. You need to systematically murder people for it to be a genocide.

No, by his absence of (you)s we can assume he's pointing out that its a bad argument that got BTFO. Fortunately (or unfortunately depending how you look at it) I have resolved all the issues inherent in Brainletars asymmetry and have restored it to mathematical perfection.

Attached: 1520859579205.png (541x505, 84K)

not at all, ethnic replacement is also genocde as is enforced anti-natalism (like forced castration like they did in ancient times) as well as deportation all count as genocide. Im sorry slowjack but anti-natalism is a tool of genocide, and in most cases ethnic replacement genocide. Its double genocide

Ok but even if it's genocide that's the point. Trying to equate it to the holocaust doesn't render any antinatalist arguments moot.

i know but im practicing my false flagging and expected you to fall apart with a knee-jerk reaction

you won this one

we already have evaluators. What about your argument suggests they must exist into perpetuity?

Attached: 1520314330141.png (817x443, 34K)

You can't terminate your own existence by merely killing your earthly body. The problem is that you've already become relevant. Its too late to undo the damage.

Attached: 79d.jpg (606x731, 202K)

>feed me more souls so that I may devour them in Hades

nice try, Satan

Attached: med_1482908683_00031.jpg (640x481, 44K)

>Most people are idiots and this has been my argument the whole time

okay

Attached: 1520964123617.jpg (670x671, 79K)

To you they are idiots and from their point of view, you are the idiot. What makes a life worth living is up to the person living it. You and everyone else are under no authority to dictate that a persons opinion about their own life is wrong.

>Parents that consumed weed and later changed their life to not consume aren't hypocrites and don't argue in "bad faith".
Actually, they would be if they went from chugging joints and loving it, to merely living in a home that is filled with weed smoke constantly, while telling us with a straight face that even second-hand smoking of cannabis is atrocious for your health.
>Killing yourself would only mean not letting the other people how bad is " x" thing.
Wait, what?
You have the fucking Internet at your disposal.
You can make an entire vlog, 2 novels, and a reality show on Youtube on how life sucks and taping the stages of you offing yourself.
George Sanders famously his suicide by saying he was bored, and became famous for it.

Attached: George_sanders_black_swan_2.jpg (708x540, 47K)

*famously motivated

Democritus starved himself because he felt 100 years is enough living.
etc.

OP, the best thing people like us can do is get as far away from these maniacs as possible. I genuinely feel an underpinning sense of terror in my every moment with people. The same blithe optimism that allows them to diminish these problems is the exact same attitude that allows them to justify shooting heroin of such horrific behaviors as this. Humanity is really like a junkie who keeps doing unconscionable things and then sobers up only to excuse them in convincing language.

Attached: bronze-bull.jpg (632x415, 29K)

no, but logic is such an authority.

What logic?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic

m8 I'm talking about how it applies to life.

logic applies to everything. What are you, some kind of postmodern snowflake?

OP, the best thing people like us can do is get as far away from these maniacs as possible. I genuinely feel an underpinning sense of terror in my every moment with people. The same blithe pessimism that allows them to diminish these pleasures is the exact same attitude that allows them to justify preventing a life from being born. Antinatalists are really like a junkie who refuses to do the right thing and then excuses themselves in convincing language.

>serving one's country, helping others, or becoming successful
Pride, altruism, and achievement all provide pleasure and conform to utility maximization.
Maybe you can't stop a problem, but you don't have to compound it. Moral indifference isn't the answer to powerlessness.

How can will be absolutely qualified as privation if it is desire? The thing that is desired is not present, but the desiring is still present. Will is only privation objectively.

>Pride, altruism, and achievement all provide pleasure and conform to utility maximization.

I disagree while pleasure may explain a part of its value it fails to explain the whole sum of its value. But what I was a truly trying to get at was meaning. A meaningful life does not factor in utility in any way. It serves a purpose and is beyond utilitarianism. To quote Nietzche "He who has a why can live anyhow"

Are we talking about virtue logic? Contract logic? Utilitarian logic? Existential logic? deontological logic?

First order predicate logic.

Godel proved that it doesn't work.

Modal logic is also ok, but stop there.

Ok, which ethical/value system should we apply it to? Because it can apply equally to any of them.

spotted the fucking brainlet wikipedia scholar

When you don't know if it is satire or real anymore.

Attached: Anime-Laugh-3.gif (400x225, 1.38M)

I knew that SJWs were retarded, but this is getting ridiculous.

Attached: Facepalm-Picard.jpg (600x600, 415K)

How's that OCD treating you

>Almost everyone says
>Almost everyone's behavior confirms
Appeals to personal anecdote do not an argument make

Attached: pasunargument.jpg (720x533, 17K)

When we are talking about life it does. The worth of someone's life is subjective.

"Someone's life" is not "life" itself. A person will value their life however they please, but life itself is an objective condition. When I say "my life is worth living" this does not mean that "all life is worth living."

sure, they have a choice of anything between negative 0.1 or negative 9 gorillion. Its still a negative.

Well, you asked for it

Attached: 1493689623696.gif (480x270, 909K)

That what exactly are you arguing for? That life fundamental bad in some sense?

>sure, they have a choice of anything between negative 0.1 or negative 9 gorillion. Its still a negative.

Please don't tell me this was your actual argument.

I'm not "arguing for" anything right now, I'm just pointing out that even if I'm generous and ignore the fact that you're trying to pass off what amounts to a contrived probability as a universal judgment the conclusion that life itself is worth living does not follow from "almost all people enjoy life" that "life is worth living." That conclusion wouldn't even follow from the premise "all people enjoy their lives."

>the conclusion that life itself is worth living does not follow from "almost all people enjoy life" that "life is worth living."
Wow. sorry about that, I must be sicker than I thought

no, everyone ignored my actual argument, probably owing to the fact that they can't contend with it. Its like if you post that flat earth simulation video for flat earthers, they are just like "nope didn't happen lol" and continue shitposting about weather balloon cams.

If I did claim that life was always worth living let me retract that statement now. What I am arguing for is that because so many people find their lives good that means that giving birth to someone will often result in a life worth living. Its a counterargument to the idea that "life isn't good enough to justify giving birth"