/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.16982572]

Antinatalists BTFO by Epicurus

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16982584]

[Anonymous No.16982596]

>>16982572
Epicurus BTFO by Ligotti

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16982638]

>>16982596
>We’re not afraid. We’re just grumpy and Right! Because!
Poor coping skills. With the argument and with the wildness of life

[Anonymous No.16982653]

>>16982638
>Life is a blessing, thank you for bringing me into this world.

[Anonymous No.16982659]

>>16982596
Cringe. One could easily commit suicide painlessly, if one truly believed life was not worth living. Or is your life, anti-natalist, actually more pleasurable than it is painful?

[Anonymous No.16982676]

>>16982572
>Be happy, consume and reproduce. If you question the purpose of this just fuck off and kill yourself.
Sounds like a totalitarian cult.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16982685]

>>16982653
I don’t know if you knew this already or not, but I’m not religious. I’m a socialist and want to relieve their suffering

[Anonymous No.16982690]

>>16982676
Cults don't tell you to leave if you don't like what's going on.

[Anonymous No.16982693]

>It is reported, also, that some of the Thracians sit round the newborn babe and chant dirges. So, then, death should not be considered a thing naturally dreadful, just as life should not be considered a thing naturally good. Thus none of the things mentioned above is naturally of this character or of that, but all are matters of convention and relative.
—Sextus Empiricus, Outlines of Pyrrhonism, III, XXIV

[Anonymous No.16982695]

>>16982638
>>16982659
Lots of people care about me. Why would I add more suffering into the world by killing myself? I can live my life, not reproduce, die naturally, and disturb the fewest people. And while I'm alive I can work to ease suffering for others, which I could not do if I was dead. There is absolutely no necessary connection between recognizing it would be better not to have been born, and killing yourself. It's a straw man that you introduce because you cannot dispute the iron man.

[Anonymous No.16982696]

>>16982685
>religious people want to see people starve

[Anonymous No.16982699]

>>16982690
Yes they do?

[Anonymous No.16982701]

>>16982685
As long as scarcity exists there will be need. As long as there is need there is suffering. Scarcity will probably always exist. Therefore suffering is permanent. The socio-economic system doesn't matter since Communism will probably never be achived.

[Anonymous No.16982703]

>>16982699
No, they force you to stay. If someone tells you that "if you don't like something, then stop engaging in it," that's perfectly rational and not a cultic mindset.

[Anonymous No.16982705]

>>16982696
Well, the religious say the poor will always be with us, whereas the socialist says he can stop it. Which one is right is impossible to say

[Anonymous No.16982710]

>>16982695
Why not convince them to kill themselves too? There’s no necessary connection, no, but it’s a strong indication that you do not take your so-called beliefs seriously. After all, people care about their children, even when those children have not yet been born. How can you say a mother’s joy at having a child (not to mention the father’s, grandparents’, etc) does not outweigh any suffering the child might experience?

[Anonymous No.16982718]

>>16982703
Excommunication is a big deal in plenty of cults as a way to enforce purity and clearly differentiate ingroup-outgroup, sounds like you might have a narrow idea of what a cult is.

[Anonymous No.16982721]

>>16982690
They either banish or kill you. Pretty much what Epicurius is recommending.
>Commit yourself fully. Have absolute faith or shut up.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16982726]

>>16982695
That’s well enough and good. I’m the same for not having children in my life, for wanting to end institutions designed to make the majority suffer. The antinatalist assumes much more. There is no excuse for it.

>>16982696
Mother Teresa did it everyday

[Anonymous No.16982732]

>>16982718
If people were advocating for the execution of antinatalists, then you would have a better analogy, but this doesn't really work. There's a difference between kicking someone out of a group to make a show of them and letting people leave of their own free will.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16982739]

>>16982701
There is enough for all as is (not at the same rate a middle class westerner lives)
Don’t wave that miserable rag doll of an argument in my face again. We do not have to live in this poverty.

[Anonymous No.16982740]

You fags realise one can be a pessimist and enjoy life, right? I personally quite enjoy living, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the world is an inferno. One needs only consider the condition of most animal life.

[Anonymous No.16982747]

>>16982710
>Why not convince them to kill themselves too? There’s no necessary connection, no, but it’s a strong indication that you do not take your so-called beliefs seriously.
Why would the reasons I just gave for not killing myself fail to apply to anyone else? Before you accuse people of not taking their beliefs seriously it's better to make sure you understand what their beliefs actually are.

[Anonymous No.16982773]

>>16982653
If they suffer so much as you speak, they will do something with it as they grow up. As for now, these kids struggle for life, which means they see something worthy in it. And I doubt those kids, if survived, will become antinatalists in the future. They will likely reproduce even more to ensure that at least one of them will try and make it out of misery. Who are you to speak for themselves?

[Anonymous No.16982790]

>>16982596
>but they must accept that if they believe themselves to have a stronger case than the pessimist, they are mistaken.
I've been poor all my life and both my parents are dead even though I'm in my mid-twenties but you'll never convince me both that I would have been better not to have been born.

[Anonymous No.16982792]

>>16982739
>There is enough for all as is
Maybe for the bare minimum, without accounting for logistic and distribution problems, and that is implying population doesn't keep climbing. At some point equilibrium breaks. You think that this relatively very short burst of material abundance will last? The ecological catastrophe resulting from the modern industrial society is already looming. As long as we live in this material life there won't be a "for each according to his need". Especially considering needs are ever expending.

[Anonymous No.16982800]

>>16982790
Where did that 'both' come from wtf.

[Anonymous No.16982805]

>>16982790
>>16982800
Split personality developing - more incentive to commit suicide

[Anonymous No.16982814]

>>16982740
It is ultimate cuckoldry to accept the world as inferno but not even try to do anything about it. In that regard I respect antinatalists more because at least they propose a solution, even despite it being self-defeating, even despite they are hypocrites who don't follow it.

Reproduction ensures survival, survival ensures people continue looking for a solution. We live in inferno made by our kind, so we are in full power to change it. Only ultimate cuck enjoys life so much and wants his family to stop right there, to let his genus die out like a slave he was instead of trying to break out the slavery and bring up a worthy person.

[Anonymous No.16982821]

>>16982773
> which means they see something worthy in it.
No they don't. They don't think about it. They are just struggling for survival like any other animal because these bodies are programed to survive and reproduce. This primal state of being doesn't give you the time to stop and ask "why?".
Just because life drugs you into thinking it's worthwhile doesn't mean it actually is.

[Anonymous No.16982829]

>>16982790
> you'll never convince me both that I would have been better not to have been born.
How do you know?

[Anonymous No.16982848]

>>16982821
>these bodies are programed to survive and reproduce
bingo. And here you are, antinatalist who tries to convince me to go against my own biology, convince me to trust your advice you don't follow yourself instead of trusting my own body. You don't have to ask why, you just see it, and your own "why" led you to this ill, hypocrite state of being, advocating for things you don't believe in yourself, speaking for others as if you knew them better than they know themselves.

[Anonymous No.16982885]

>>16982848
Is there any problem in wondering why are we doing what we are doing? You are aware that human society requires a considerable amount of biological repression so why are those acceptable but not others? (Asking you to not kill when someoen else makes you mad is fine but asking you to not reproduce isn't?)
Was it hypocritical also for slaves to wonder about freedom but not immediatly and blindly launch a rebellion against their masters?

[Anonymous No.16982923]

>>16982653
That's not a refutation of life, but of niggers.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16982957]

>>16982792
Bare minimum?!
People live on that now!
Why are you still sticking up for the excesses of the sociopaths responsible for this misery? Are you that mathematically challenged?

[Anonymous No.16982980]

>>16982596
yeah ligotti is right. I love how smoothbrains>>16982638
>>16982659
can't handle it

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16982989]

>>16982980
>Yeah, I’m going with the poor coping skills just to epicly win.
Pseudery

[Anonymous No.16983031]

>>16982659
>One could easily commit suicide painlessly
how

[Anonymous No.16983034]

>>16983031
Carbon monoxide poisoning.

[Anonymous No.16983038]

>>16983031
death by snusnu

[Anonymous No.16983058]

>>16982685
You want it but you dont actually do anything for it. You could join a charity instead of posting on 4chan

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!oI3er5KKetj No.16983108]

>>16983058
Bandaid for a broken spine.
I am but one, and not even a charismatic, I know what I must do, but this is not the year to bring them together.

[Anonymous No.16983396]

>>16982638
Based butterfly?

[Anonymous No.16983541]

>>16982596
I agree that the suicide argument is quite stupid, but the antinatalist conclusion is obviously not justified. Every argument about "better never having been born" is made from the position of already having been born. It's pure speculation.

[Anonymous No.16983720]

>people are starving in a shithole third country that most likely is a shithole because of a dictator installed by a first world country
>they clearly want to kill themselves and are depressed
>they wouldnt want to live and improve their conditions, they suffer from the same shit i do (im not lazy and pathetic i swear, im just being realistic please believe me)
why wont you fuck off or kill yourself op. you just want to justifiy being useless

[Anonymous No.16983827]

>>16982596
this just proves antinatalists don't have a very strong position. they are just dishonest doomers (pessimists) too stupid for serious philosophy given their mind-numbingly simplistic SOLE 'argument' with assertions they have yet to even attempt to justify.

[Anonymous No.16983947]

>>16982596
Ligotti really doesn't say anything here. I guess it's part of a longer book that may present an actual argument, but there is nothing here.
Line 3 and 4 are just insulting his opponents. The passage highlighted merely denies the implication of his opponent but offers nothing like a "btfo", he merely states his denial.
The last two lines is a some smug asshole moment about how you sure can disagree with almighty Ligotti, you'd just be wrong.

[Anonymous No.16984140]

>>16983720
I live in a first world country and I suffer just as much as those in the third world. We are both better not being born

[Anonymous No.16984240]

>>16982814
>It is ultimate cuckoldry to accept the world as inferno but not even try to do anything about it.
Fuck off with this edgy teenage nonsense. All life exists by consuming other life. From bacteria to whales, every form of life survives only via inflicting suffering and death on other life, over and over and over again. Even plants compete to grow taller than the plants surrounding them, and by doing so rob those other plants of the sunlight they need to thrive. The only time an organism ceases to prey on those around it is when it dies.

>We live in inferno made by our kind
Spoken like a true cityfag. Spend a few days out in nature and pay attention to what's actually going on around you. Spend some time watching insects, for example, and you will realize that you are surrounded by a ceaseless tide of mindless suffering and cruelty. Humans are in a special position due to being aware of the suffering we cause, but the misery endured by all other living things is not lessened simply because that misery is inflicted by creatures that lack empathy. If anything, it's worse. If I were to be eaten alive, I'd rather be eaten alive by a human, with whom I could at least hope for some slight kindness in the process, than by an insect or animal which will have utterly no concern for anything but its own hunger.

[Anonymous No.16984274]

>>16982572

The idea that performing the act will end me is not my own, it belongs to the very world and life I hate.

[Anonymous No.16984285]

have any of you in this thread asked your parents why they had you? if they were sure that they could guarantee that you won't end up miserable, in chronic pain, with debilitating depression or a life of alienated meaningless survival.

i'm guessing they didn't give it as much thought. most people posting here are likely from the developed world. but in a developing country where I'm from, people have children without giving a single fuck about the quality of life they will lead and because having a child and giving birth to life is sacred and wonderful and fulfills some selfish need. in this context, i really wish antinatalism was more popular - as something that demonstrates to people here how fucking cultish and stupidly cruel they can be by deciding to have children without knowing the kind of responsibility that entails.

antinatalism, apart from the obscure theoretical philosophu, has better use in pointing out the limitations of the life affirming cult.


also, the rich/investor class likely doesn't regret being born afaik. they don't confront problems that subject them to the kinds of indignities of everyday suffering most people go through.

[Anonymous No.16984286]

>>16983396
Don't feed the trannies.

[Anonymous No.16984293]

>>16982572
debunked a long time ago.

[Anonymous No.16984307]

[Anonymous No.16984317]

Antinatalists presume free will exists. Throw that crackpot idea in the bin and you'll quickly see as to why it is a useless thought game.
This is besides the argument other anons in this thread have already said, the goodness of not being born is only speculation.
My materialistic take is that life soley exists as a continuation of RNA, and so the only worth in being is to contintue the production of RNA as a blind watchmaker.

[Anonymous No.16984325]

>>16984317
>Antinatalists presume free will exists. Throw that crackpot idea in the bin and you'll quickly see as to why it is a useless thought game.
cringe

[Anonymous No.16984326]

>>16984317
Sorry anon but because I have no free will I must stay an anti natalist and also call you a retard.

[Anonymous No.16984327]

>>16982572
My attempt at a refutation:

"It's better not to have been born" does not logically imply "It's better to be dead AFTER having been born".

Why?
Compare:

Imagine your friend asks you to go to a party.
However, you know it is better not to go to a party. Indeed, you are much better off reading a book!
However, once you HAVE gone to the party (because your friend asked you so much that he pretty much forced you into it), is it necessarily better to leave it? No, maybe it's better to stay. There are friends who want you to stay. There is all the effort you made in order to go to the party until you finally decided, once and for all, that maybe it really wasn't worth it.
So you stay, even though it would have been better to not have gone there in the first place. But now it's too late: you're already there.

However, if given the choice next week: will you go to the party again? This is the real, pressing question.

Personally, I would still like to have the choice, while the dead person has no choice to go to the party - this is where the book-death analogy fails. As Gell-Mann said: "death is not commutable". Once you choose it, you have no other choices.

So my refutation only proves that Epicurus is incorrect. It does not prove anti-natalists are correct.

[Anonymous No.16984338]

>>16984285
>investor class

Idiot. Anyone can invest. Most investors aren't rich. 55% of Americans invest and the number was 65% in 2007.
Having prejudice against investors is a typical populist mania with no basis on the empirical world.

[Anonymous No.16984353]

>>16984326
>>16984325
Were you literally incapable of reading the materialistic take, or is this some cognitive demon argument?

[Anonymous No.16984361]

>>16984353
Have you ever heard of a fate worse than death?
When your current situation is worse than death so you just prefer death?
Thats what life is, people like you just don't see it.

[Anonymous No.16984366]

>>16984338
Investing 50k is nothing. All you can do is turn it into 150k or something and that doesn't change anything.
Meanwhile the investor class turns 50 million into 150 million. They go from strength to strength. Even the investor class feels regret and pain. Many killed themselves in the great depression because they lost their money and they'd rather have died than live as poor people.

[Anonymous No.16984369]

>>16984327
I think you'd also understand that there is some disconnect with the fact that the friends wanting you to stay and the effort you put in to go to the parrt.
One places value in social interaction the other puts an abstacted effort (could be monetary or energy) which is the sunk cost fallacy.

[Anonymous No.16984370]

>>16982596
This reads like something you'd see Dawkins say, start off with some irrelevant pretentiousness about how anyone who disagrees with him is beneath him, then give some lame refutation of the opponent that shows he doesn't even understand his own philosophy or what his opponents mean.

[Anonymous No.16984373]

>>16984353
I have to ignore you materialistic take. Maybe I could consider it if I had free will.

[Anonymous No.16984382]

>>16984361
My main assumption would be that the dissolution of conciousness is the worst fate in the universe.
Thinking your current situation is 'worse than death' is most of the time a faulty calculation made by the brain. (Endogene depression, ptsd etc...)
Some cases, such as brain damage, would have an argument in that it causes (mental)anguish but these are solvable problems. Not with our current understanding of the relevant fields, but the possibility is there.

[Anonymous No.16984383]

>>16984366
>investor class

Anyone who invests belongs to the so-called "investor class".
What you refer to are the millionaire investors, i.e., a very small minority among investors.
So be precise, please.

[Anonymous No.16984389]

>>16984383
The rich investors control all the stocks

[Anonymous No.16984391]

>>16984369
Sunk cost fallacy is not really a fallacy though. It only describes a sort of behavior that is completely understandable, because what matters is how much value the person places on his previous effort, not the objective chances of her next efforts succeeding. Maybe the humiliation of recognizing you fail hurts more than failing again without recognizing it. It all depends on how an individual feels about the actions in question.

It makes sense to use the sunk cost fallacy in the context of public spending or in a big company, but not in the context of an individual's personal life.

[Anonymous No.16984399]

>>16984389
What are you talking about?
No one controls all the stocks. A black swan is all it takes to fuck everyone up.

[Anonymous No.16984412]

>>16984391
It woud in this case, for why stay at a party if the effort already put in would go to waste so to speak. Its a net 0 anyway so at that point you could just leave. The humiliation aspect I would label under social interaction again.

[Anonymous No.16984423]

>>16984412
>for why stay at a party if the effort already put in would go to waste so to speak

Because the party might bring some unpredictable good, or even just the good of pleasing your friend.

[Anonymous No.16984458]

>>16984317
I don't have any free will at all but the torch passed to me through millennia of RNA keeps it flame lit with me. Forcing me to call you a raging homosexual.

[Anonymous No.16984478]

>>16984423
>Because the party might bring some unpredictable good
This is an argument againt antinatalism, and really the point Epicurus made.
You first argument would be a case against antinatalism, solely of this assumptionreally
>good of pleasing your friend
Like I said earlier this would fall under social interactions. Could be an argument against suicide of course.

[Anonymous No.16984489]

>>16982596
>Ligotti being a miserable coward and disingenuous about it
Who would have thought

[Anonymous No.16984583]

>>16984478
It isn't. It's an argument against the anti-natalist having to commit suicide.

[Anonymous No.16984621]

>>16984583
Yeah the assumption being that it may be better later. Antinatalists are pessimists, such an assumption would be counter to their thought, ergo the argument doesnt hold for antinatalists

[Anonymous No.16984724]

>>16984423

Something "good" is more Evil than something Evil. A man whose life is totally Evil will reach terminal grief the fastest and die, having suffered much less than a man whose life and suffering are directly proportionally prolonged by something "good".

[Anonymous No.16984758]

I can't understand why anyone would support natalism. I don't mean this as an argument, I just find it incomprehensible how people are so attached to the idea of procreation.

[Anonymous No.16984820]

>>16984758
If you like people, or simply are curious about new characters coming. This holds true for any new people appearing but especially about your own children who give the appropriate sort of similarity to yourself.
That would hold true without considering mortality (although you'd have other issues like crowding to take into account).
Of course because we die, there is the additional strong motive to keep this world populated and not let it without material sentient creatures (at least of your kind). Most people don't hate this world and would see it a waste to have it desert.

[Anonymous No.16984841]

>>16984820
>If you like people, or simply are curious about new characters coming.
I don't and I'm not.
>Of course because we die, there is the additional strong motive to keep this world populated and not let it without material sentient creatures
I don't see why it's better for the world to have life than for it have no life.

[Anonymous No.16984971]

>>16982814
Post body. I'm curious to see the physique of somebody who unironically believes this.

[Anonymous No.16985057]

>>16982572
I never got antinatalism. I like being alive and I like the thought of knowing I'm alive. Even the most immense suffering to me is better than nonexistence because the suffering is an experience at all, it's not nothingness. And most people don't experience the worst of the worst suffering in their lives.
I think there's obviously some psychological mechanism at play for the antinatalists. Do they wish their parents never had them? "They" would still be conscious. You can't escape consciousness due to anthropics.

[Anonymous No.16985096]

>antinatalist hedonist
>just kill yourself if your life sucks

[Anonymous No.16985137]

>>16982572
The "but people would suffer if I kill myself" argument is so weak. They suffer because they don't know the truth that nonexistence is better than existence. If you are an antinatalist you believe this is the truth. The action to take is suicide. This is like someone becoming an artist when their parents want them to become a doctor. The parents suffer, but only because they are wrong in their belief that their son or daughter is better off becoming a doctor. Maybe this is a personal thing, but if something is the truth and there is no negative consequence for you acting on it, what reason is there to not do it? Your decisions will always make some people happy, others not, but the goal shouldn't be to maximize other people's happiness or minimize their suffering. There really is nothing holding you back, suicide is the one right nature grants to you.
It all comes down to being unable to act on the truth.

[Anonymous No.16985150]

>>16985057
Non-existence isn't real. The fact that you exist now, in a localized state, indicates that you as an experience are a fundamental aspect of reality, not unlike an element.
You can never not be, just as you can never unsee.

[Anonymous No.16985153]

>>16982572
>your philosophy is refuted by "Why don't you kill yourself?" and "Most people think life is worth living."

[Anonymous No.16985163]

>>16982653
Kill them, then. Or better yet ; help them, they'd prefer that to death. Let people who enjoy life alone. That's all your reasoning comes down to.

[Anonymous No.16985169]

>>16982693
Way more based than pessimism.

[Anonymous No.16985181]

>>16985169
True. The real redpill is indifferentism.

[Anonymous No.16985182]

>>16982596
Absolutely unsurprising that someone who looks like Ligotti indulges in ideas like pessimism and antinatalism--he is one ugly nigger.

[Anonymous No.16985183]

>>16982705
Poverty is relative and people are different, interested in different things and if allowed, will live their lives differently.
Poor people will always be with us, because people are willing to pay all their lives to do something, be it an addiction, feel sorry for themselves or breed despite retardation.

[Anonymous No.16985188]

>>16985181
>ism
Imagine living with malware in your mind and perception sphere.

[Anonymous No.16985194]

>>16985188
You retarded or something?

[Anonymous No.16985200]

>>16985194
I'm something.

[Anonymous No.16985214]

>>16982596
>claim 1: it is better not to be born.
>claim 2: if born, it is better to die.
The two don't imply each other, and the source does not imply they do. Why is ligotti strawmanning?

[Anonymous No.16985223]

The greeks were some of the stupidest retards in history, persians should've eradicated these subhumans, torched their scrolls, and spared us their insipid faggot """""philosophy"""""

[Anonymous No.16985229]

>>16982596
He just asserts it doesn't follow. But it does. If he kills himself, he spares himself more suffering, and since suffering on balance always outweights pleasure in life (he thinks), it's the best thing to do at any point.
The truth is that he doesn't really think life is not worth living in general. His life as a celebrity paid to write books is mostly pleasant, but since he's always musing over sad thoughts in the back of his mind he thinks that's the same thing as intense suffering. If he was actually suffering too much for it to be worthwhile, he would kill himself.
The option to kill yourself is always there if you really think life isn't worth it. Since the vast majority of people actually think it's worth it, they don't kill themselves. I think most people are actually the best informed insofar as their own preferences are concerned. And the truth is that most of them even prefer a life with as much suffering as it has to not having existed at all. And it's impossible for someone to lack informations regarding their own state of pleasure and displeasure, by definition ; and their memory isn't that bad either. Looking back, most people think it worthwhile. Ligotti is in the minority there who likes his life to much to kill himself but still doesn't think he should've been born.
Here I have shown that pessimism must lead to a defense of suicide, that this pessimism was only adequate to a small number of people, and that anti-natalism was only adequate to an even smaller number of people. My conclusion ; you can have kids, and you should let people kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.16985235]

>>16985214
You forgot claim 1.5, life is always overall more suffering than pleasure. From *that* claim 2 does follow. And that's what he says himself. He refutes himself in his own paragraph.

[Anonymous No.16985280]

>>16985214
The problem comes from justifying claim 1.
It is usually (I mean 99% of cases today) done through some sort of negative utilitarianism. But negative utilitarianism is indeed refuted by "dude kill yourself".

[Anonymous No.16985315]

>NOOOOOOOO YOU CAN'T JUST IGNORE THE HOBBESIAN WAR OF ALL AGAINST ALL YOU HAVE TO CONTRIBUTE OFFSPRING

lmao positively seething

[Anonymous No.16985359]

>>16982596
cringe and tautological

[Anonymous No.16985422]

>>16985214
>birth is a horrible event, outshadowing all other events life can have
Why, though? Is touching a vagina so bad?

[Anonymous No.16985469]

>>16985422
Aks Plato, he's the progenitor of this meme

[Anonymous No.16985497]

>>16985315
source of the gif? looks kinda sweet

[Anonymous No.16985509]

>>16985497

Redline animu
Thin plot draped over stellar animation

[Anonymous No.16985512]

>>16984240
This. And let’s not forget that even if we lived in a utopia with no scarcity and suffering it would only be temporary (even if it lasted for a few millennia) because entropy will eventually make it all wind down and fall apart, and scarcity and suffering would return— and be worse, because after all the years of utopia the human race would lose the ability to deal with unhappiness.

[Anonymous No.16985533]

>>16982814
Based

[Anonymous No.16985535]

>>16982596
There is no argument here

[Anonymous No.16985558]

>>16982740
>I personally quite enjoy living, but it doesn’t alter the fact that the world is an inferno.
But it does

[Anonymous No.16985569]

>>16982596
Just contradicting someone isn't enough.

[Anonymous No.16985592]

>>16985422
Marinara lists are all just extremely homosexual

[Anonymous No.16985613]

>>16985315
If you don't get pleasure out of making kids, nobody's forcing you.
Natalism is thinking that your situation would be better if more people in general or in your nation had kids, and therefore, incentivizing it in some way. It's not necessarily morally shaming people who think that, right now, it's not worth it. I'd like a higher natality in the West in order to make population younger, but I'd only advocate for positive, not negative incentives, and I perfectly understand not wanting to have kids at all or not wanting to have them given the context.

[Anonymous No.16985641]

>>16985613

>taking a moderate position

nah fuck that. anyone who brings a child into this universe is commiting a simultaneous act of rape and murder. No justification is possible and frankly none is expected. Enjoy your ashes.

[Anonymous No.16985649]

>>16985641
lmao you've been refuted a thousand times already retard. You cling to your beliefs either for aesthetic reasons or because you're psychological trash ; kill yourself, do a favour to the world.

[Anonymous No.16985656]

>>16985641
Based.

>>16985649
Mental age 13.

[Anonymous No.16985669]

>>16985656
Thinking that because you give someone life you are thereby responsible for their death due to natural factors you neither caused nor wanted amounts to murder is indeed very mature reasoning.

[Anonymous No.16985676]

>>16985669
You're Jordan Peterson in this debate. Pathetic.
https://youtu.be/vsyZcKUP_-k

[Anonymous No.16985678]

>>16985669
* and that it amounts to murder

[Anonymous No.16985684]

>>16985676
Literally everyone would make these same arguments when facing antinatalist doctrines, from Peterson to your dad. The fact that you're refuted so easily by retards like Peterson simply show how dumb your stance is.

[Anonymous No.16985689]

>>16985684
>The fact that you're refuted so easily by retards like Peterson simply show how dumb your stance is.

That's below the belt.

[Anonymous No.16985691]

>>16983827
Your inability to understand something does not make that thing stupid.
>>16983947
The extract makes a clear case that when you respond "just kill yourself then" to a pessimist you are not in fact addressing their actual position. There is not "nothing" here, though I grant you may have gotten nothing out of it.
>>16984370
>>16984489
>>16985182
Seething ad-hominems, clearly unable to handle ideas.
>>16985214
Of course they don't imply each other, that's what Ligotti says in that extract. And it's not a strawman as you can see in OP's extract.
>>16985229
No, it does not follow. Not gonna read such a long post that amounts to putting words in another fellow's argument. Try coming to terms instead of forcing your own terms for a change.
>>16985359
Incorrect use of both words.
>>16985535
There is, though it may be "over your head."
>>16985569
Saying that what they're saying is not what you're saying is enough to demonstrate that they have your position wrong. Obviously.

Sad scenes for the natalists itt.

[Anonymous No.16985693]

>>16985689
I'm kicking the balls Anon.

[Anonymous No.16985697]

>>16985669

Who is responsible for their death then?

[Anonymous No.16985700]

>>16985691
>No, it does not follow.
Yes it does. He says life is always more suffering than pleasure. If it makes it always not worth living, then suicide, as it makes life stop, is the best action to take at every moment.

[Anonymous No.16985705]

>>16985700

See:

>>16984274

[Anonymous No.16985707]

>>16985697
The laws of Nature, and I agree they're cursed. Most people still would say they are happy to have been born, so within most ethical frameworks, you're justified having kids. If you hold to an ethical framework that makes it bad to merely potentially cause someone inconvenience or something of the kind, then indeed, it's bad to have kids. I just think those ethics are dumb.

[Anonymous No.16985710]

>>16982596
How could someone living in contemporary Florida contradict someone who lived in the Hellenistic Age? I rest my case by appeal to authority.

[Anonymous No.16985714]

>>16985705
This makes no sense. Will death end life? Is life worse than non-life? Why not enact death then, whatever the other reasons to value death may be? It doesn't matter where this idea of suicide comes from, as long as it's true that it will end life and that life is never worth living.

[Anonymous No.16985716]

>>16982572
Also Epicurus
>If you having life problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and your ass ain't one.

[Anonymous No.16985723]

>>16985700
No, you're being solipsistic in an effort to score a cheap win without engaging the argument. I destroyed the basis of your entire position yesterday in this post >>16982695

[Anonymous No.16985733]

>>16982596
COPE TO END ALL COPES

[Anonymous No.16985739]

>>16985707

Why are they dumb?

[Anonymous No.16985744]

>>16985649

Imagine becoming complicit in your own defenestration fucking weeeeeewwww

[Anonymous No.16985746]

>>16985714
>as long as it's true

My point being that it is not.

[Anonymous No.16985749]

>>16985723
You would indeed increase suffering in others if you killed yourself. That's valid if you hold not only to an egoistic negative utilitarianism, but a universalist one. I think that requires further argumentation, but if you can defend it, no problem. Go ahead and defend it. Why would it be good for to enact what's good for others? If the only value is not being in pain, why would you be justified putting yourself in pain for others to be in less pain?

[Anonymous No.16985756]

>>16985739
Do you think someone giving someone else a car, that can
Show how your stupid doctrine doesn't rest on negative utilitarianism or ethical frameworks of the kind then.

[Anonymous No.16985760]

>>16985756
*Do you think someone giving someone else a car, that can potentially some day stop working, means they're responsible of whatever will cause the the car to stop working at some point?

[Anonymous No.16985766]

>>16985746
How is it not true that death will make your life end, thereby your suffering? Do you not hold to the idea that life is always bad, because it is moreso suffering than pleasure? If not, you just don't hold to Ligotti's view which was what I was assuming.

[Anonymous No.16985767]

>>16985707
>argumentum ad populum

retard

[Anonymous No.16985779]

>>16985767
It's literally not an argumentatum ad populum. It's not "life is worth living because most people find it worth living", it's "lacking other defeaters, it's not morally evil to do something to others that they will more probably welcome than regret".

[Anonymous No.16985804]

>>16985779

>lacking other defeaters

you are so delusional that no real communication is possible between us. I suspect you of being disingenuous, having ethical myopia of convenience, or some mix thereof.

[Anonymous No.16985817]

>>16985804
What are the other defeaters, Anon? I may even have already adressed them.
You do realize most ethical philosophers don't think their ethical stances lead them to antinatalism, right? Either they're all dumb, or your ethical stance is unusual. I bet it's the latter.

[Anonymous No.16985831]

>>16985760

Not potentially, but surely, and yes. Most of all if you think that it stops working by inexplicable and/or irresistible causes, it becomes a Moral imperative to NOT do it.

[Anonymous No.16985832]

>>16982596
Again, if you think you're better off never having been born, then why are you still alive?

[Anonymous No.16985844]

>>16985766
>How is it not true that death will make your life end

How is it true?

[Anonymous No.16985845]

>>16985831
Not at all, that's absurd. I know the car will stop working at some point, it's inevitable. But it's better to have a car than not. So if I give someone a car, I've given them something worthwhile. By your reasoning, all gifts, all actions that are not explicitely asked for by someone, are immoral. That's a weird ethical stance no-one holds.
It's similar with giving someone life. Since most people in a situation X think it's better to have life than not, eventhough they expect it to end, I'm not doing anything bad to by giving life. It will most probably be considered a good gift by the person I'm birthing. See >>16985779.

[Anonymous No.16985853]

>>16985844
All your experiences up until now have been linked with bodily states. If you have no body, is it not at least possible, if not probable, you won't experience anything anymore?

[Anonymous No.16985865]

>>16982572
Antinatalism is only believed by individuals with clinical depression. They never deny it, they simply insist it is irrelevant.

[Anonymous No.16985871]

>>16982653
you seem to be confused, we're talking about human life

[Anonymous No.16985875]

>>16985845

That is indeed the reasoning. I hold it.

[Anonymous No.16985884]

>>16985865
In order to disprove antinatalism, you have to produce that natalism is actually good.
Having kids is bad in all cases. The higher the population the worse life gets. So it makes sense to reduce it.

[Anonymous No.16985906]

>>16985875
Then I just deny your ethical stance that forbids all actions that can potentially bring any harm, as would most people. I think it's evidently absurd as I would not wish others to act with regards to me according to this (then we wouldn't even be able to interact at all). You could try to argue for it though. It's clearly not the default.

[Anonymous No.16985909]

>>16985853

Not at all. In fact, from the world-hating and life-hating position I maintain that all my experience thus far has been occluded by the body, and that disposing of it would only make me experience more.

[Anonymous No.16985910]

>>16985884
>The higher the population the worse life gets
what's the proof of this? subjective reasoning?

[Anonymous No.16985914]

>>16985832
Lol "again" indeed. Try to keep up instead of just repeating dead arguments. Re-read the image you're replying to, and read this too >>16982695

[Anonymous No.16985915]

>>16985831
>Not potentially, but surely, and yes. Most of all if you think that it stops working by inexplicable and/or irresistible causes, it becomes a Moral imperative to NOT do it.
This is an unreal moral believe that only works in a thought experiment where there is no entropy.

[Anonymous No.16985920]

>>16985884
>The higher the population the worse life gets.
Not at all. The more kids the higher the capacity for humans to change nature, make scientific discoveries, etc.
Plus not all kids are equal. Western countries should have more children, it'd be economically and culturally good for them, since they're already below replacement.
And putting the question of total population aside, I think natalism is good because >>16985779 and >>16985845.

[Anonymous No.16985932]

>>16985909
That's an interesting stance, but I don't see how you can defend it. I don't deny that if true it makes suicide a non-option. Could you argue for it?

[Anonymous No.16985936]

>>16985909
How did you conclude that your body is occluding your experiences?

[Anonymous No.16985944]

>>16985906
>then we wouldn't even be able to interact at all

Exactly.

[Anonymous No.16985947]

>>16985884
>In order to disprove antinatalism, you have to produce that natalism is actually good.
Nonsense. It could be that natalism is devoid of moral content, or it could be that natalism is sometimes good and sometimes bad, depending on context. There are plenty of alternatives to anti-natalism.

The asymmetry argument presented by Benatar is simply false--nonexistent individuals cannot be harmed and cannot be benefited. Not bringing an individual into existence does not benefit the non-existent person, just as it does not deprive them. Likewise, bringing someone into existence creates opportunities for both benefit and harm. Most individuals report they are glad to be alive, suggesting that the benefit outweighs the harm (in general, but not universally).

The fact is that anti-natalists have a mental disorder. They have diminished positive affect that normal individuals experience as part of daily life--"basic" pleasures such as company, food, and beauty elude them.

[Anonymous No.16985962]

>>16985944
I know you want that. I'm asking you why I or anyone else should want that. If you can't defend you hatred of life as *correct*, then there is no discussion. I don't deny some people hate life, and want death. I don't mind these people killing themselves, or being depressed, or anything of the sort, although I'd like for there to be less people who think like thus, through these or those means. But I assumed you were trying to argue for this position. If you admit it doesn't fit most people's basic preferences there is no discussion possible, you just admitted life is worth living for most people.

[Anonymous No.16985971]

>>16982572
The Greeks already solved philosophy, everything after was just a rehashing of the same ideas.

[Anonymous No.16985990]

It takes the suffering and death of 10,000 sea turtles to produce one viable adult. If you can't imagine a better system than that, I pity you.

You've already taken the antinatalist pill. It will eat at your ignorance until you come around. Life will keep serving you tragedies until you get it.

[Anonymous No.16986001]

ITT:
>WAAAH WAAAH an hero isn't painful and antinatalists should do it if they believe that life is suffering
Except it is, both on a physical level (if you commit suicide) AND most importantly on an existential level, as you have the constant and ominous feeling that death is going to be inevitable (or imminent, in the case I find myself all alone on a rooftop, with the void in front of me) down the road? You create a being biogically programmed to wanting to live above all, only to make it die later. And this is regardless of the quantity of pain you went through during your life, as death is inevitable, no amount of happiness you felt is suddenly going to cancel it. Sure, you can do everything in your might to alleviate this dread by being busy with love, hobbies and whatever (one in fact does everything in their might to live the best life they can as they've already entered existence), but why couldn't this be prevented altogether?
The presence of death in one's life being the ultimate factor of existential pain is why "If you think your personal life sucks so much, you can fix it by killing yourself" is not only a contradiction, but in fact an argument in favor of AN. You've forced me in a situation where I, a being attached to his own existence, are forced to choose voluntarily what I abhor he most if I want to escape the other pain I experience during my own existence.
People with shitty lives already suffer because, well, they lead shitty lives; people with "happy" lives, if they focus clearly on the human condition, realize all of what they cherish (to which they're obviously attached) is going to be taken away from them. A person who believes in AN doesn't say "Since life sucks, I'm going to kill myself", they say "I wish I had never existed in first place so I wouldn't have to experience this horrible feeling of death approaching right now". ANs, observing the situation, ask you: "why did you have to create an entity that is attached to their own existence if the laws of the universe are going to strip them of this very thing they're attached to and cause him dread because of this? Why couldn't you spare them this pain?".

Reply to this without "You just say this because you'd be a terrible parent!", "It's good that you think about this, that way you can remove yourself from the gene pool", "something something Reddit" or the evergreen "Fucking Jews, man, I bet this is an idea they came up with to destroy the White race".

[Anonymous No.16986011]

>>16985932
>>16985936

Even in the vulgar scope of Materialism, it is demonstrable that all sense organs only register a small part of the Phenomenal. Ending the particular sense experience by ending the body could cause a greater quality and quantity of sense experience through means hitherto unknown and imperceptible through said particular sense experience, culminating in experiencing the whole Phenomenal at once, the opposite of what world-haters and life-haters want.

[Anonymous No.16986024]

>>16985990
So we're talking about sea turtles now? I think the life of a single person I love is worth millions of sea turtles, easily. Why would I not want to have kids whom I'll love and who'll most probably think it's good they've been given life, because sea turtles suffer? If your argument is that human living causes animal suffering, 1) that only matters if you value animal suffering like human suffering and 2) if you think this balance can't be tipped by things like vegetarianism and an ascetic lifestyle. Furthermore, I'm not responsible for the animal suffering I don't cause at all or that my giving birth to humans doesn't cause either, so this type of suffering has no bearing on natalism.

[Anonymous No.16986032]

>>16982596
But...it does.

[Anonymous No.16986035]

>>16986011
>could cause a greater quality and quantity of sense experience through means hitherto unknown and imperceptible through said particular sense experience, culminating in experiencing the whole Phenomenal at once, the opposite of what world-haters and life-haters want.
Even if I follow you there, you're assuming the whole Phenomenal would produce the same type of balance of suffering and pleasure than limited life. How do you know that? My bet would be that, being limitless, it will be the experience of the total fulfilling of all intentionalities, be they desire, signfication, etc., and that thus it'd be the annihilation of most causes of suffering.

[Anonymous No.16986037]

>>16982572
>first time hearing about antinatalism
>ok this is all out absurdism but this might be interesting
>it's all muh suffering bullshit
Is there any antinatalist not based on whining about suffering? Something about embracing inexistence on metaphysical grounds, not even mentioning pain and co.

[Anonymous No.16986046]

>>16985990
"we" are humans who have unfortunately way high consciousness then the fucking robotic animals. so fuck off with your retarded comparison.

[Anonymous No.16986050]

>>16986001
This post is way too long to say so little.
>The presence of death in one's life being the ultimate factor of existential pain is why "If you think your personal life sucks so much, you can fix it by killing yourself" is not only a contradiction, but in fact an argument in favor of AN.
Even if that's true, once dead, you're no longer in presence of this factor of existential pain. So you are still justified in doing it.
>ANs, observing the situation, ask you: "why did you have to create an entity that is attached to their own existence if the laws of the universe are going to strip them of this very thing they're attached to and cause him dread because of this? Why couldn't you spare them this pain?".
Most people would say : I am happy to have lived all this, even if it was temporary. I've been at the deathbed of four people in recent years, not one has thought it not worth it. That something is temporary doesn't mean it's worthless.

[Anonymous No.16986055]

>>16986001
Killing oneself would eliminate "the horrible feeling of death approaching". It would also eliminate "existential pain", and it would eliminate your "biological programming to want to live". It would eliminate literally everything you claim to despise, and it would render you exactly as if you hadn't been born. You would not exist.

The fact is that most people do not live under this crushing shadow of death because they are able to experience subjectively meaningful psychological states, while you are not. This is because you have a mental disorder.

[Anonymous No.16986058]

>>16985962

Life and suffering are directly proportional. If you do not want so suffer then you should not want to live.

[Anonymous No.16986066]

>>16986058
People want to exist in a state of no suffering, which is quite different from wanting not to exist. Were you to pose explicitly the question of whether one would rather live with a definite amount of suffering, or perish, virtually everyone would choose to live unless the suffering were enormous.

[Anonymous No.16986067]

>>16986058
>Life and suffering are directly proportional.
No, some types of lives have more or less suffering.
>If you do not want so suffer then you should not want to live.
I value other things in life. In balance, my life is good, I value it. I get a lot of pleasure and, beyond the pleasure/suffering dichotomy, I experience a lot of things I value. So I want to live, and I think the suffering is worth it.

[Anonymous No.16986078]

>>16985910
>>16985920
>>16985947
The baby boomers disprove that the incoming generations will have a life as good as ours. The ease of life they experienced will never be experienced by any generations that come after them. Gen X was the first generation with a lower quality of life than the previous generation and millennials are way worse.
Boomers has an easier time buying land, getting a good paying job and social mobility in general. Gen X had to become entrepreneurs in order to beg boomers to invest and thereby share their money.

[Anonymous No.16986079]

>>16986037
Absurdism doesn't mean what you think it means.

[Anonymous No.16986082]

>>16986066

Why not enourmous-1, enormous-2, enormous-3, until you would accept none at all?

[Anonymous No.16986089]

>>16986078
Things will either get much better or much worse after Neo-liberalism inevitably collapses.

[Anonymous No.16986094]

>>16986078
If you think life is not worth living unless it's as easy as a baby boomer's, you're in the minority.
If your argument is rather that we should have less kids because of baby boomers, I don't get it. If anything, one of the reasons why life was good at the time was that there were a lot of kids, whereas now we have a few young people paying for a lot of old people, and a sterile of culture because old people have too much influence. So the West (countries with shitty demographics) should have *more* kids.

[Anonymous No.16986102]

>>16986082
There's probably a whole spectrum of suffering where some people would accept it, some wouldn't, and some would doubt whether or not they should. That doesn't change anything.

[Anonymous No.16986113]

>>16982695
So, why don't you commit a massacre? You're going to avoid the potential pain of a lot of people and their possible descendants.

[Anonymous No.16986116]

>>16986102

Yes? I asked why.

[Anonymous No.16986122]

>>16986079
Yes it does. Antinatalism go against the principle of sufficient reason.

[Anonymous No.16986136]

It's not about pain or pleasure, but about the will to live, the unquenchable force of the spirit.

[Anonymous No.16986138]

>>16986050
>>16986055
>yes I am an life affirming man but you should just kill yourself lol
oh the contradiction and irony
but I really wish it was this easy.

[Anonymous No.16986147]

>>16985914
>>16982695
>but if I die people who care about me will grieve and suffer
Nigger, you're going to die. Whether you die now or 50 years from now, these people will still grieve. So you're only delaying the inevitable and therby increasing suffering while you exist.
AND in 50 years, these people will care about you MORE and will thus grieve more when you die. So in fact, you're HURTING THEM by living longer and deepening this doomed connection.

TLDR: YOU ARE A HYPOCRITE BECAUSE YOU'RE STILL ALIVE

[Anonymous No.16986151]

>>16986147

[Anonymous No.16986159]

>>16986147
and you are also a hypocrite because you're suggesting another person as a life affirming man to kill themselves

[Anonymous No.16986162]

>>16986136
Fuck off with this christcuck bullshit

[Anonymous No.16986175]

>>16982572
Antinatalism is the veganism of giving birth. Go ahead and not have babies; no one gives a shit

[Anonymous No.16986177]

>>16986159
I'm logic-affirming. I'm consistency-affirming.
I actually think certain types of people don't deserve to exist.
I'm not a universal "Life-ist".

So either stop saying that existence has negative value, or stop living. Otherwise, you're a nigger brain.

[Anonymous No.16986196]

>>16986116
That means it's not life people don't value, it's the suffering in it. And only in the extremes of suffering do most people prefer death. Since on balance, most people consider it worth it, against anti-natalism >>16985779 and >>16985845.

[Anonymous No.16986199]

>>16986177
then by logic if you think that there is nothing wrong with existence then you're a life affirming person and that's make you a hypocrite.
either stop say saying that you're okay with existence or stop saying to other people that they should kill themselves.

[Anonymous No.16986205]

>>16986138
I don't actually want you to kill yourself. It's about showing a practical contradiction in your doctrine. But it's true that if you care about the feelings of others you shouldn't kill yourself, as it will make your family and friends suffer.
However, I don't say I'm "life-affirming". I agree some lives aren't worth living. If we could predict which, we shouldn't birth those.

[Anonymous No.16986207]

>>16986175
this thread was made by a natalist you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.16986209]

>>16986067

People's perceptions are not at all homologous with what is Mathematically demonstrable, i.e. the obvious suffering inequality does not necessarily mean that the man demonstrably suffering more is actually suffering more than the man demonstrably suffering less. Suffice to say that both the touted quip that one can "return to normal" after great sufferings and its awful implications that one cannot after lesser simply suggest an ever-increasing universal suffering, directly proportional to life. Your second point is very strange. Would you not value said things all the more without suffering, requiring you to rebuke suffering inasmuch as you value them?

[Anonymous No.16986214]

>>16986199
Not him (I'm >>16986205) but maybe there is something wrong with some lives, and not with some others.

[Anonymous No.16986219]

>>16986199
Not that anon but you are a colossal brainlet trying way too hard to mirror the other post in an epic gotcha moment.
>if you think that there is nothing wrong with existence then you're a life affirming person
The man is obviously life-neutral.

[Anonymous No.16986221]

>>16986199
your brain is actually black

there is nothing contradictory about being life affirming and telling antinatalists to killthemselves

antinatalists want all life to end
tolerating their existence is what would be contradictory for a lifeist.

[Anonymous No.16986222]

>>16986196

You're just restating the previous reply. I asked WHY. WHY do people prefer death only in the extremes? WHY not extreme-1?

[Anonymous No.16986228]

>>16986199
PS: FUCKING KILL YOURSELF. any physical action taken against an antinatalist is justified self-defense

[Anonymous No.16986236]

>>16986205
if you see nothing wrong with existence then you're a life affirming person one way or another.
ANs don't commit suicide because their problem is pain, both physical and existential, and the act (and before it, the very thought of committing that act) of suicide is what they abhor, as it brings death and as they've become attached to life the very moment they came into existence. If they don't ever come into existence, they can never feel this dreadful feeling of abhorrence.
>A person who believes in AN doesn't say "Since life sucks, I'm going to kill myself", they say "I wish I had never existed in first place so I wouldn't have to experience this horrible feeling of death approaching right now". ANs, observing the situation, ask you: "why did you have to create an entity that is attached to their own existence if the laws of the universe are going to strip them of this very thing they're attached to and cause him dread because of this? Why couldn't you spare them this pain?"

[Anonymous No.16986237]

Life doesn't make any sense. Everything is transient. Prove me wrong.

[Anonymous No.16986249]

>>16986209
>

People's perceptions are not at all homologous with what is Mathematically demonstrable, i.e. the obvious suffering inequality does not necessarily mean that the man demonstrably suffering more is actually suffering more than the man demonstrably suffering less. Suffice to say that both the touted quip that one can "return to normal" after great sufferings and its awful implications that one cannot after lesser simply suggest an ever-increasing universal suffering, directly proportional to life.
I nowhere said the opposite. I don't see how that makes it that any life contains as much suffering as all others. As long as suffering can be subjectively evaluated, and one can say "I suffer that much", it seems obvious to me that some lives will conclude they suffer a lot, and some not a lot. It doesn't need to be possible to "mathematically demonstrate" who suffers most to conclude that some people suffer more than others.
>Your second point is very strange. Would you not value said things all the more without suffering, requiring you to rebuke suffering inasmuch as you value them?
Yes I would value these things more without suffering, if you define suffering not as the subjective feeling of pain but as "contrary to my preferences". Some feelings of pain in some context I do value (melancholy, etc.). But I would indeed prefer for what's contrary to my preferences not to happen. That more general conception of "suffering" is more potent imo.
Anyway, I however know that not living wouldn't be a good way to reach this, because it would imply not experiencing all those other things I value. That was my point ; the suffering is pragmatically worth it.

[Anonymous No.16986252]

>>16986214
>>16986219
>>16986221
>>16986228
>yes I would like to have kids because life beautiful and there is nothing wrong with existence. and yeah you should kill yourself because how much I love life.
kek, you fucking hypocrites.

[Anonymous No.16986257]

>>16986237
Give an estimate of the end of validity of the theorem of intermediate values.

[Anonymous No.16986275]

>>16986252
>it's hypocrisy for people who hate killing, to kill killers
you are actually retarded, my guy
and yeah, you should KYS

[Anonymous No.16986277]

>>16986222
Because of their particular psychology. I don't think there is a universal answer. For a given state of being that much in pain, depending on their overall psychology, some people can stand it, some can't. Some have a drive for living certain experiences that make it worthwhile to suffer a lot in order to live those experiences. Others have an ability to withstand pain because they can dissociate from themselves. For others, it's linked with their beliefs ; they belief it's all ordained by God, for exemple, and they have to be able to withstand anything.
It's empirical however that the bar is very high. The point at which people think their life is in too much pain and not worth living is generally very high. So it's very hard to be in a situation where it's morally bad to have kids.

[Anonymous No.16986295]

>>16985691
>Saying that what they're saying is not what you're saying is enough to demonstrate that they have your position wrong
People can be mistaken about the implications of their own position.

[Anonymous No.16986308]

>>16986275
a killer kill another person without their consent. and antinatlists care about consent of their future kids. by this logic natalist are the real killers who bring a person in this meat thrasher without their consent and on top of that, that person is going to die miserably.
So natalist are the killers.

[Anonymous No.16986309]

>>16986236
>if you see nothing wrong with existence then you're a life affirming person one way or another.
I just wrote in the very post you quoted that some lives aren't worth living. I don't think there is something inherently wrong with existence, but I also don't think you can "demonstrate" to someone who hates his life that his life is worth living. So if this person wants to commit suicide, I can only appeal to his altruism and not wanting to make his family and friends suffer.
>ANs don't commit suicide because their problem is pain, both physical and existential, and the act (and before it, the very thought of committing that act) of suicide is what they abhor, as it brings death and as they've become attached to life the very moment they came into existence. If they don't ever come into existence, they can never feel this dreadful feeling of abhorrence.
I agree that if we could predict who would come to hate their life more than want to live over their whole life, we should not birth these people. I've stated it before. But since we can't and most people think life is worthwhile, it's not immoral to have children.
However, I disagree with you that the fact death is painful and scary means that the pessimistic stance (defined as : "life is always more suffering than pleasure, and that means it's not worth living) shouldn't lead you to suicide. Because it's an effort (the one of withstanding that pain and fear for a few minutes) that's, at least egoistically, worth it. The benefits clearly outweight the cost.

[Anonymous No.16986320]

>>16986252
>>16986308
See >>16986205 and >>16986309.
And for your argument about consent, see >>16985845, >>16985906, >>16985962 and >>16986066.
This thread is now going in circles.

[Anonymous No.16986327]

>>16986309
>that some lives aren't worth living
>I don't think there is something inherently wrong with existence
kek

[Anonymous No.16986338]

>>16986320
I don't give a shit about following the thread.
I have just used the consent argument with logic of the comment that I was replying.

[Anonymous No.16986340]

>>16986327
If there existence was inherently bad, no life would be worth living, you retard.

[Anonymous No.16986351]

>>16986338
The analogy of the other Anon with killing serial killers was obviously not about consent, so your rebuttal doesn't work. It was more probably about how he thinks anti-natalists, by not valuing life, are in a special position that makes it ok for them to kill themselves, just like serial killers are in a special position that makes it ok to kill them. Just because some people can be justified in committing suicide doesn't mean life isn't worth living for the rest of people ; in the same way, just because it's moral to kill some people doesn't mean it's moral to kill everyone.

[Anonymous No.16986360]

>>16986340
oh that's why the birth rates are falling in the intellectual west.
To quote Zappfe here

>Why, then, has mankind not long ago gone extinct during great epidemics of madness? Why do only a fairly minor number of individuals perish because they fail to endure the strain of living – because cognition gives them more than they can carry?

>Cultural history, as well as observation of ourselves and others, allow the following answer: Most people learn to save themselves by artificially limiting the content of consciousness.

[Anonymous No.16986362]

>>16986340
*If existence was inherently bad, no life would be worth living, you retard.

[Anonymous No.16986375]

>>16986351
>The analogy of the other Anon with killing serial killers was obviously not about consent
yes it was, killers are killer because they kill people without their consent.

[Anonymous No.16986381]

>>16986360
If you think people don't have kids because they think existence is not worth living, you're retarded. Even in the West people's "ideal number of children" when asked on polls is above replacement. People are actually frustrated that they can't have kids, and most people who don't regret it when they're too old for it.
Your quote is just a blind statement. The truth is that on average, smart people are happier. So if anything, a higher consciousness makes you like life more.

[Anonymous No.16986389]

>>16986327
Seems you insist on ascribing a moral value of extreme (effectively infinite) magnitude (positive or negative) on "life" itself, as such.
Most people here (and in the world) ascribe a positive value to life, but not so much that specific conditions can't overcome that, conditions determined empirically, depending on the person, although quite rarely happening. The question of being "life affirming" or "denying" in general is underdetermined.

[Anonymous No.16986392]

>>16986308
>antinatalists aren't killers
see pic>>16986221
your kind don't care about consent
your kind only wants life to die out

in regards to consent, I don't need the consent of my creation
I don't need a sperm's/ovary's/fetuses' consent; they aren't people

[Anonymous No.16986394]

>>16986277

The question of why the unacceptable suffering quotient is as such and not smaller still stands for each of those cases. Presumably, people speak of it as a result of Reason, not of experience, or they would have killed themselves had they known their purported quotient thereby, or it is not their actual quotient. What makes X unacceptable and X-1 acceptable?

[Anonymous No.16986395]

>>16986375
Ok, but I don't think that's what was aimed at in the analogy. An analogy doesn't need to be between two things's essential properties. Most analogies aren't.

[Anonymous No.16986399]

>>16986252
you're right, they are hypocrites, and i'm a natalist.

[Anonymous No.16986413]

>LMAO it's FINE bro!
>MOST of your victims will never even know you roofied them SO IT'S MOSTLY MORAL
>Source DUDE TRUST ME

[Anonymous No.16986421]

>>16986394
I think a similar amount of suffering *can* be experienced differently by two people as they contextualize it differently. Why do you think there is a precise point where it becomes inherently acceptable or inherently not?
I don't mind it being ultimately irrational. I'm not sure ultimate, basic values all need to be justifiable. If according to these, X-1 is worth it, then it is moral in any moral system that's not absurd, imo, to give someone life while expecting most probably less overall suffering than X.

[Anonymous No.16986430]

>>16986399
You're not only a natalist but someone who thinks all lives are better than death. That's a minority position. Are you Christian?

[Anonymous No.16986447]

>>16986381
just look at contemporary cultural and depression rates in over the world. Whole world in a nihilist stasis and they cope by consumerism, drugs and shit like that. if you think that there's is no connection between the existential awareness and falling birth rates in west then I think you are being disingenuous.
I live in a third world country where people without kids are as much miserable as the people with kids.
Nature and evolution are only interested in reproduction. and after a certain age it kicks on your fucking ass and then you're only good dying. and nature punishes every step you take against the reproduction that's why incels whine so much.

[Anonymous No.16986457]

>>16986249

And you do NOT find it troublesome that as life increases so too does suffering, detracting more and more from your valuing of things, until you can all but not value them anymore, and stop valuing them altogether in case you are right about death? Who would impose such things onto you? Would affirming it not affirm the suffering, rather than the valuing, since it, not death, is that which is immanently against it, and in greater quantity relative thereto? Why would you want it imposed on others?

[Anonymous No.16986470]

>>16986389
>Most people here
kek, for fuck sake 4chan is place for depressed social outcasts, autists, schizos etc. that's why you read tons sducidal replies in every how you holding up thread. if you don't believe me then make one and see it for yourself.

>>16986392
and I can cheer pick the replies of American christian boomers who cheer for nuking north Korea.

[Anonymous No.16986471]

>>16986413
you're joking but I argued with an antinatalist who actually said that

[Anonymous No.16986484]

>>16986470
>that thread is cherry picking
you're delusional
it's in the subreddit for antinatalists
and every comment that threatened all Life is heavily upvoted
you are actually deluded
I'm done here because there's no point in engaging with a troll/schizo

[Anonymous No.16986493]

>>16986471

I'm not joking in the slightest. This isn't some semantic game.

[Anonymous No.16986514]

>>16986447
>just look at contemporary cultural and depression rates in over the world. Whole world in a nihilist stasis and they cope by consumerism, drugs and shit like that.
There is more depression today than before, yet it's not true most people are depressed at all. And being depressed doesn't mean you wish you weren't alive. Far from it, most depressed people probably don't wish that. And even if most people were to wish that, anti-natalism would still only be justified, as I argued before, to those people that can reasonably expect they'll birth people who will prefer not to have been born. To those that could reasonably expect otherwhise, having kids would still not be immoral.
>if you think that there's is no connection between the existential awareness and falling birth rates in west then I think you are being disingenuous.
I think our existential awareness is lower in industrial society than before. If we had more existential awareness, more experience of suffering linked to one's basic survival for example, I think we would have lower rates of depression. I think depression; which is rising in industrialized countries, is caused by contingent facts like the destruction traditional communities and too much comfort.
>I live in a third world country where people without kids are as much miserable as the people with kids.
>Nature and evolution are only interested in reproduction. and after a certain age it kicks on your fucking ass and then you're only good dying. and nature punishes every step you take against the reproduction that's why incels whine so much.
I agree with you there. But I'm not apologizing for Nature. Although I think giving life is very rarely immoral, and I'd rather live forever than die, I don't think life is perfect. I think what's wrong in life is located in its limitations caused by Nature, and what's good is some other aspects of Nature and we've produced to transcend these limitations.

[Anonymous No.16986517]

>>16986484
then go complain on reddit. it's non of my business.

[Anonymous No.16986530]

>>16986421
>Why do you think there is a precise point where it becomes inherently acceptable or inherently not?

I don't. You do. See: >>16986066 . I think it's all inherently unacceptable. I don't suppose you think it's all inherently acceptable, so I'm asking WHY draw a line at all? Unless you are a slave of the Archons, of course.

[Anonymous No.16986538]

>>16986457
I don't think that as life increases so does suffering. I think that depends on the type of life. I think most lives contain a balance of pleasure and suffering that the people living them find good. So rather than it being imposed on them, they see it as a gift. Most people are thus thankful towards their parents. And most people would thus want more life, to reach more things they value.

[Anonymous No.16986552]

>>16986538

Does suffering ever decrease?

[Anonymous No.16986561]

>>16986530
I'm not the one drawing the line. I don't draw a line, I merely notice (I'm not the original poster, actually, but I agree with him) that almost everyone does, and that that line prefers life except when it contains the most extreme of evils. As to which preferences make it so that people draw the line there, I think that depends who you are talking to.
If you ask me, I'd accept all but extreme sufferings because I value being able to freely think, to enter loving relations with people, and to create and experience artworks. If I couldn't experience *any* of those, then there is a lot less suffering I'd accept as worth it.

[Anonymous No.16986574]

>>16986552
Depends for whom. But I've noticed old people are happier than young people, up until very old age when their bodies start fucking up.
Anyway, where are you going with that? Even when suffering increases with time, it rarely goes to the point where people say "I wish I wasn't alive".

[Anonymous No.16986591]

>>16986561

But you do draw a line in this very reply?!

[Anonymous No.16986613]

>>16986574

If suffering increases with time, with life, what does this mean for your "balance"?

[Anonymous No.16986615]

>>16986430
No i'm not christian
I see an anti-natalist and I get sad and I want to help them improve the situation they're in

[Anonymous No.16986618]

>>16986591
I mean that before that post I wasn't the one drawing the line. My argument doesn't rest on where *I* draw the line.
But yes, since you ask me personally, I also provide my personal reason for drawing the line somewhere.

[Anonymous No.16986622]

>>16986514
>I think depression; which is rising in industrialized countries, is caused by contingent facts like the destruction traditional communities and too much comfort.
I literally am from this society. And guess what? people are way more pessimistic and mentally fucked then you can imagine. the grass is always greener on the other side. I can't even visit a public hospital without experiencing deep depression. the only thing which is helping them moving(for the lack of the better word) forward is religion. but under this mask they share the atheistic Neo-liberal consumerist values without even knowing that. but that's another debate.
And most people don't think about this kind of shit. they busy themselves with their strong coping mechanisms to avoid the confrontation with reality.

But if you have truly examined the state of things and you're still okay with having kids then sure go ahead it's your personal life.

[Anonymous No.16986624]

>>16986613
If it did for everyone, it would mean that necessarily at some point, life wouldn't be worth it, and at that point, it would for everyone become better to end it. But not before.
But I don't think it does for always increase with time for everyone.

[Anonymous No.16986627]

>>16982572
Self-awareness is independent of biological mechanisms. It being difficult to kill yourself does not invalidate it.

[Anonymous No.16986631]

>>16986615
That's nice. I think you're right that it's a better stance. But isn't it possible some people just hate life too much, and will never prefer it to death? Or do you think — because that's the question — that suicide is never worth it?

[Anonymous No.16986665]

>>16986618

I am not asking why each one's line is different relative to each other, but why each one's line is drawn there, rather than elsewhere, at smaller and smaller values of suffering, ultimately relative to a universal 0. Why is it drawn at all?

[Anonymous No.16986679]

>>16986622
>I literally am from this society. And guess what? people are way more pessimistic and mentally fucked then you can imagine.
I can see that. I don't have a great picture of non-developped countries, I was just speaking of depression. You said that depression rates are rising. They're rising because countries are becoming more like advanced Western countries. It's in Western countries it's more prevalent. So I offer an explanation that focuses on what's particular to Western countries. I don't deny there is sadness and suffering in all societies.
>the only thing which is helping them moving(for the lack of the better word) forward is religion. but under this mask they share the atheistic Neo-liberal consumerist values without even knowing that. but that's another debate.
It may not be. If you ask me, I'd say that's probably part of the problem. I think the old religious order had many flaws that make it inferior, but it provided an outlook on life that built communities and gave meaning to hardships. If you still have communities and comfort but these communities are actually becoming mere means for money-grabbing and suffering isn't contextualized in love for your kind, love of the creations of high civilisation (artworks, manners, your culture), then indeed I'm not surprised life is becoming dire. It's like the worst of both worlds. Still it seems to me that statistically, depression is more of a Western thing.
>And most people don't think about this kind of shit. they busy themselves with their strong coping mechanisms to avoid the confrontation with reality.
I'm not sure it's coping, Anon. If you ask them what they hate in life, it's very concrete things, not "the fact that some day I'll die" or that "things are temporary". So they focus on this.
>But if you have truly examined the state of things and you're still okay with having kids then sure go ahead it's your personal life.
Yeah, I agree with you there are many things wrong with the world, and in a sense, a deep feeling of revolt against it is justified, but even people who feel this way — as I do — and that I know still think life is worth living. So I'll have a family if I can and I'll try to make life as good as possible for them. Interpersonal love and the ability to share your inner, mental world through speaking and writing is what makes even the worst hardships worthwhile imo.

[Anonymous No.16986681]

>>16986624

I commend your intellectual honesty.

[Anonymous No.16986720]

>>16986665
So you want the mecanism behind evaluation of what one can endure? I'd say suffering creates a breakdown of the will. Suffering is a kind of weakening of willpower, as the capacity to focus on what one desires. There are strategies to increase one's willpower, and people have more or less desire. When people have many, strong desires, or they have strategies to endure suffering, then they can resist more of it, and vice-versa. I also think suffering, well-defined, is just "experience that I'd prefer not to have".
Is this a good enough picture? I don't think however it's necessary to have this map of the mecanism for the natalist argument. The natalist argument I made only necessitates that your ethics makes it ok, lacking any other defeater, to do things to others that they did not ask for if you can be pretty certain they will welcome them. I think you establish it if you notice where most people draw the line.

[Anonymous No.16986729]

>>16986681
Thanks, Anon.

[Anonymous No.16986766]

>>16986720

Isn't this rather...naive? By this measure, slaves "welcome" their condition. Would this make the perpetuation of slavery ethical?

[Anonymous No.16986773]

>>16986138
>oh the contradiction and irony
>but I really wish it was this easy.

The structure of the argument is A -> B, where A is your objections to being born, and B is the desirability of suicide. There's nothing in the argument that implies a person who is life affirming should believe in the desirability of suicide.

[Anonymous No.16986778]

>>16986679
sure then go ahead and have kids.
but beware of an uncaring universe, wretched society and a brutal fucking bitch named nature.

[Anonymous No.16986820]

>>16986766
How do they? Most slaves have a lot of experiences of "breakdowns of the will", i.e what I'd call "true" suffering — not just the experience that we associate with suffering but the mental state of believing that it's not worth it.
If you mean that it'd be possible to have situations of slavery where the slave welcome his slavery, well I guess you could. That's not what's abolished when you abolish slavery though is its forceful imposition ; no one is keeping anyone from just obeying someone else because they want to.
If you ask *me* what I think of all this, I don't have a horse in this debate. I'm skeptical with regards to ethics itself. But since almost all ethical frameworks except negative utilitarianism fail to justify anti-natalism I think it's easy to argue against natalism, as I've done.

[Anonymous No.16986830]

>>16986778
Thanks. I will, but I agree with your outlook. Good luck going forward.

[Anonymous No.16986845]

>>16986820

Slavery is life itself at a lower instantiation or a shallower layer, no?

[Anonymous No.16986848]

(cont.)
>>16986820
By the way I'd like to add that there are two questions ; is my suffering right now justified pragmatically, or ultimately. I think a lot of suffering we have is justified (doesn't produce a breakdown of the will) pragmatically but not ultimately. What's justified pragmatically is what we voluntarily undertake to reach a goal. What's ultimately justified is what was necessary for the author of the world to put in place to reach overall goodness. I'm not saying there is demiurge or that if there is one, he is good.

[Anonymous No.16986868]

>>16986631
Yeah I think suicide is never worth it.

[Anonymous No.16986891]

>>16986845
I do think for the vast majority of slaves slavery is better than death. That doesn't mean it's good for them to be enslaved, though, does it? In a Nazi labour camp, clearly, the prisoner's slavery went against most of their desires and inflicted suffering upon them.

[Anonymous No.16986906]

>>16986868
Is it a religious dogma or is it because of some specific reason?

[Anonymous No.16986913]

the purpose of suffering is get rid of losers like the ones in this thread
losers are forced to suffer to let them know that no one values their existence
if you're suffering, then please listen to what you're being told: no one wants you here, so leave

[Anonymous No.16986940]

>>16986891

Indeed, and I maintain that this is true for life itself also, or rather, is true for life itself first and foremost.

[Anonymous No.16986976]

>>16986940
I don't see how that follows. That life is worth living even to a slave doesn't mean life is similar to slavery. Sure, it has one trait in common with it, namely that you don't choose it. But that's also true of, idk, nobility. The pampered son of an aristocrat, who lives in immense wealth and pleasure from birth, didn't choose it either. Picking slavery as representative of what life necessarily is is as disingenuous as picking that.

[Anonymous No.16986988]

>>16986976
*even to most slave
Some certainly would've rather preferred not to have been born. I guess in what proportions depends on the type of slavery kek.

[Anonymous No.16987010]

>>16986940
then kill yourself

[Anonymous No.16987016]

>>16986976

It is no better to be a nobleman. I find the form of the slave's and nobleman's states of affairs equally objectionable, regardless of content.

[Anonymous No.16987023]

>>16986906
I mean it in a practical way where it's never worth it because it's better to suffer and try to better the situation for yourself and everybody. and if it's in great suffering like slavery that's a bit different but it's proven that people did get through that by seeing into a better future and hope and fight for the life..

[Anonymous No.16987036]

>>16987016
Then that's you. If there no type of life you find worthwhile, then in whatever situation you would've been born having this psychological constitution, you would've wished never to have been born. I never denied people like you existed.

[Anonymous No.16987044]

>>16985700
suicide and the chance of it going wrong and creating far more suffering is pretty scary to most people

[Anonymous No.16987051]

>>16987023
I guess. But imagine you have an awful illness that will always get worst. You have tried time and time again to get used to it but you can't. Would it be irrational to prefer to die then, concluding that you'll probably never reach that mental state where you can handle it?
I guess you could answer that as long as there is a possibility, it's preferable to nothingness, and I can't debate that. That's like the metrics of ethical evaluations. I don't know which are the best.

[Anonymous No.16987078]

>>16982696
God has a plan for all of us anon. If it happens to be for tons of children to starve in 3rd world countries, well, He moves in mysterious ways, dontchaknow.

[Anonymous No.16987086]

>>16987036

My point being that this is universally true and the realization accessible to everyone through mild analysis.

[Anonymous No.16987109]

>>16987086
You haven't demonstrated it at all. I just provided a whole theory of people having basic preferences, these basic preferences making it so that most people can withstand even immense sufferings, only breaking down past a certain extreme point. Do you have any argument as to why people would change their evaluations if they knew what you know? What do you know they don't? Everyone knows they'll die, life is temporary, etc. You think you have an especially acute awareness of it, but I think you don't. I think you just have desires that are not very intense and a very low willpower, so you are in "true suffering" (breakdown of willpower) more often, and therefore think life is overall not worth it. Most people although they'd rather not have to can withstand more suffering than you can in order to get what they desire, to live the experiences they like. And so, for them, life is worth it, although it may not be for you.

[Anonymous No.16987184]

>>16987109

I don't know anything they don't. Quite the contrary, I don't know something they, apparently, do. Why an extreme point, why a point at all?

[Anonymous No.16987224]

>>16987184
We're going in circle. If people could choose to have infinite willpower, and therefore be able to withstand any amount of suffering to get what they want, they would choose that. However, it so happens that their willpower is limited, so it can break down faced with some amount of frustration of having to lived experiences that go against their wishes. So some things are not worth experiencing, and if overall your life doesn't feel like it's worth experiencing, you may prefer not to have been worth at all.
Since however, that's uncommon, even while knowing keeping in mind how everything is temporary and how death will inevitably happen, how do you plan to argue that life is inherently bad, that is, necessarily bad for all living entities?

[Anonymous No.16987295]

>>16987224

I disagree. As a man of the world's hypothetical coincidence of the best and worst days of his life, winning the lottery and his children being executed via breaking wheel or whatever, would result in a day that is definitely bad, so too the mixture, or attempted mixture, of suffering and things that are (ostensibly) not suffering into the same life would result in a life that is definitely bad; whether they and it are "infinite" or not.

[Anonymous No.16987321]

>>16987295
Well that's your perspective, what can I tell you. There is still no "argument" there. Me and most people think the sufferings we have to endure aren't intense enough to make life not worth living, even under close scrutiny.

[Anonymous No.16987379]

>>16987321

Forget scrutiny then. What about experiences alone? It only takes relatively minor suffering to supersede the greatest (ostensible) joys: a flu destroys a wedding, a bee sting a public performance, diarrhea a night's sleep, etc. Simply realizing that what is true for these smaller divisions of Time is neither less true nor curiously true, but prominently true, for the biggest unit of Time one can know, one's life, the ONLY conclusion is that one's life is irredeemably bad.

[Anonymous No.16987401]

>>16987379
Well these minor pains mustn't happen that often for people not to come to the conclusion that their life is not worth living. We really are going in circle here Anon. There is no convincing me that I'd prefer to be dead rather than suffer as much as I do, or even more. I know what I value, I know what I'm capable of enduring to keep it or get it. And I think that from the fact that most people are like me, you get that natalism is not immoral, as I've argued above.

[Anonymous No.16987402]

Forget scrutiny then. What about experiences alone? It only takes relatively minor suffering to supersede the greatest (ostensible) joys: a flu destroys a wedding, a bee sting a public performance, diarrhea a night's sleep, etc. Simply realizing that what is true for these smaller divisions of Time is neither less true nor curiously true, but prominently true, for the biggest unit of Time one can know, one's life; the ONLY conclusion is that one's life is irredeemably bad.

[Anonymous No.16987407]

>>16984971

[Anonymous No.16987431]

>>16987401
Was meant for >>16987402
Also >>16987407 nice body bro, and your beliefs are cool too.

[Anonymous No.16987469]

>>16987401

OR they happen too often and the conclusion is avoided by absurd dichotomies wherein the worth of what you "value" is imagined after the fact as somewhat proportional to the suffering it accompanies, it is connected to, it IS?

[Anonymous No.16987490]

>>16987469
No, I think not. We come back to scrutiny. You think you are analyzing life with a unique, a one-in-a-thousand accuracy, whereas everyone else for evolutionary reasons or things of the sort is missing on the obvious fact that they're in pain all the time and not enjoying that many things.
I think the more simple interpretation is that this is how you experience life, but not how most of us do.

[Anonymous No.16987535]

>>16984971

[Anonymous No.16987567]

>>16987490

Quite the contrary, your morbid obsession with affirming life betrays that you agree with me, I'd wager.

[Anonymous No.16987594]

>>16982572
>"but when born to pass..."
This literally doesn't have anything to do with antinatalism.

[Anonymous No.16987606]

>>16987567
I'm not even "affirming life", I'm clearly neutral as to whether life has inherent worth. I think it depends on which life we're talking about. as to being morbidly obsessed, I have no idea what leads you to calling me that. I just dislike anti-natalism because I think it's obviously wrong.

[Anonymous No.16987626]

>>16987606
>If people could choose to have infinite willpower, and therefore be able to withstand any amount of suffering to get what they want, they would choose that.

A neutral statement...

[Anonymous No.16987663]

>>16987626
Yeah, that's neutral with regards to life, because that's not how anyone's life is, have you noticed? Some people can't stand their lives. You among them, right?

[Anonymous No.16987679]

>>16987663

I must confess I don't know what this means, grammatically. Just clock in your daily ALIFEU AKBARs and go to bed.

[Anonymous No.16987700]

>>16987679
Are you retarded? There is no syntaxic mistake in my sentence. The statement you quote is neutral with regards to the value of life, since it has nothing to do with it. It describes an imaginary situation whereby one would have infinite willpower. In that situation, yes, any life would be worth living, but that situation is not instantiated. You're just taking this quote out of its context. Life, as it is, is most of the time worth living, but not always ; it's not, therefore, *inherently* good or bad, only contextually. Hence, my stance is that I'm neutral with regards to the value of life as such.
Is that hard to understand?

[Anonymous No.16987757]

>>16982596
This reads like cope

[Anonymous No.16987772]

>>16987700

What is the relation between the inherent and the contextual?

[Anonymous No.16987781]

>>16987772

Never mind, the first part of this reply is even more stoned than the previous one. I'M going to bed.

[Anonymous No.16987806]

>>16987772
>>16987781
I think it's pretty simple Anon, I think you're the one who's tired and having trouble with obvious things.
Life can exist in a thousand different shapes. Most (for humans at least) are worth going through, some aren't. What makes some able to withstand the pains of this or that life is their willpower. With infinite willpower, people would be able to withstand any difficulty for even the smallest positive thing.

[Anonymous No.16987822]

>>16982596
>he must kill himself
It's not about "must." You don't HAVE to kill yourself as an antinatalist, but if you don't, you're a hypocrite and/or a coward and/or a con artist.

[Anonymous No.16987865]

the attack of the antinatalists is ultimately an attack on the faculties which burned them. it's an attack on expectations of fairness, of reason, of idealism and truth. it's about putting a knife in the part of you which confuses words for meaning and make it retreat into a dark place where it can't convince you about reasons for doing anything. because there are no reasons. life is better lived as an unthought animal grunt
there is no reason to reproduce, that's as far as language goes, sorry to tell you buddy

[Anonymous No.16987905]

>>16987078
Yes. I wholeheartedly agree. Call me a pseud, but that's petty

[Anonymous No.16988258]

>>16987905
Have you read The Plague? I highly doubt you would have the fortitude to dare to say that to a room full of dying children. To tell them that not only is their suffering and death God's plan, but, in fact, their suffering and death is a good thing since it is the will of God. Although, if you could manage to say that to a child, that would make you the worst kind of monster possible.

[Anonymous No.16988358]

>>16988258
I don't care

[Anonymous No.16988392]

>>16988258
>Hey kids, I think you should know that I believe your suffering is for a good cause, and has a meaning

>Hey kids, I think your suffering is meaningless. I wish you had never been born

[Anonymous No.16988516]

>>16988258
Regular person wouldn't be able to say it, but a preacher would easily convince them that their suffering has a meaning and put them at ease

[Anonymous No.16988547]

>>16988516
Yeah dude but making people feel better and giving them meaning so they aren't attracted to pessimism is MALIGNANTLY USELESS and part of the conspiracy against the human race

[Anonymous No.16988665]

>>16982572
It's even more based when you realize that Epicurus is treating anti-natalism not as a philosophical position, but just as childish whining. He takes the same position towards people saying their jobs are intolerable, or whatever have you

[Anonymous No.16989054]

the other way around. he's the one who starts whining because the real face of biological life scares him: one of eternal splintering and indifference. a mindset antagonistic towards human life will necessarily prevail, that's how evolution works. stagnation or death will come to everyone and everything that stays human. the pessimist/antinatalist is simply one who has realized this truth and can't keep a lid on it. we're talking about suboptimal biological beings, not faulty reasoning

[Anonymous No.16989245]

>>16988392
>Assuming God has a monopoly on meaning
I swear, the religious have the narrowest and most myopic world views