/lit/ - Literature

>>11295066
>What could refute this?
The human race being something more than pathetic, shortsighted, ignorant, mean, prone to suffering and susceptible to charlatanism.

>>11295089
Which is what, exactly? If you say love what does this amount to? What has all the love in the world created but more of the same?

>>11295066
>What could refute this?
Schoppy is implying that there can be an objective way to determine if the life of most humans is worth living.

>>11295066
Men were a mistake.

Pessimists should be banned from writing. They have no idea what they're talking about

>>11295113
That's true. Conrad was probably right when he said it all rapidly went downhill the moment the first consciousness came into being.

>>11295151
>men were a mistake
If men were like women we would probably never have even invented the spear

>>11295160
I don't need men to not have hunted for food.
In fact, you'd call those early mammoth hunters onions-boys for their mindset

>>11295190
Im just saying a civilization of women would be hardly distinguishable from bonobos. If that's what you want, then go for it, but everything of any importance was invented by men.

>>11295151
Does the accuracy of their ideas hurt you? Daww

Life is full of suffering yet very little of us end up committing suicide or not fear our own death. Clearly humans find an implicit value to life that can't be stripped away just because you choose to view the world solely as suffering rather than a process that can be used to fulfil one's self. In fact, this pessimistic viewpoint does nothing to help reduce the suffering and injustices you claim to oppose, and rather only creates more. The refutation to this lies in the realisation that fulfilment for both an individual and a society can be achieved with time and hard work, rather than a self-destructive outlook.

>>11295217
a propensity for suicide cannot flourish in any gene pool for rather obvious reasons. Maybe if it only kicked in when you were 60 or something

>>11295217
Basically
>jus distract yourself lmao

>>11295208

>>11295130
No, he's arguing that there's an objective way of determining if life is worth starting, not if it's worth living. A burden is being placed on something that would never have this burden otherwise.

>>11295217
this is intellectually dishonest, vaccuous, slave morality and most importantly a banal cliché

this board is disgusting to me on every level, enjoy your summer anons. the threads are bad because bad users have driven out good users and good content. now this place not special compared to any other enclave online. v sad

What is it with depressed faggots and projecting their beta worldview onto the rest of the world?

>>11295236
I don't know. What motivates you?

>>11295235
you are very very smart and deserve much better anon :)

>>11295236
What are you doing?

>>11295208
What would constitute a "pure reason"?
Short answer; he doesn't know. There isn't any.

He should have spared us the burden of his existence. Like Aquinas, he starts from a false premise. Lonely men talking to themselves in a vacuum of hubris-cide

>>11295235
I've been here for like 5 years and it was always retarded. there is surely a version of your post slightly rewritten to be found in the archives of 2014

It's 4chan, there has never been any quality control, it's anonymous and uncensored

>>11295240
my drive to live

>>11295243
shitposting and listening to music; thinking about how the poo in my ass will feel when it departs

>>11295224
As would the lack of genes for a survival instinct or anything similar, humans are built to value life and not wish for their deaths. Saying that reproducing is an evil because it only brings suffering is simply false, as reproduction can bring new humans who are contempt with life or even fulfilled by it. A meaning or objective purpose is another matter, but that is simply untrue and dangerous, and could lead to many dangerous consequences. It's the literal pro-abortion mindset liberals use to justify killing off children.

>>11295066
I agree with the statement in that pure reason would imply that; but reason is only a small part of the human life and only a resentful virgin such as Schopenhauer would get upset by that. Life, both for animals and for humans, is competition. Some of us have to suffer and die so that others can be happy and survive. This does apply more to men than to women though, which is also why Schopenhauer was being so jealous of them.

>>11295244
aquinas was not lonely, the resentment you have against men infinitely smarter and more capable than you is almost palpable

>>11295248
>my drive to live
Whoa. Now that's an alpha worldview.

>>11295251
Killing children probably evolved for times when resources are thin and the child would die anyway or something. Many cultures practiced infanticide

>>11295234
it's the same thing anon, "Is your life worth living?" and "Would you rather to never have been born?" are in practice the same question

>>11295259
you tryna prove a point to yourself or something bud? go transition if you're gonna act like a snarky bitch

lol maybe you'll be a cute girl :)

>>11295244
What are you on about? Do explain how 'they have no idea what they are talking about", and what they are trying to talk about, in your pea-sized mind.

>Like Aquinas, he starts from a false premise

You clearly haven't read either; but do lay out what premises they start off from, why they are false and why you are right. Because somehow the idea of a redundant no one who spends his time tripfagging on 4chan making such bold claims that are without any substance irks me.

>>11295265
>lol maybe you'll be a cute girl :)
Whatever it takes to make you less limp, friend.

>>11295256
So you're saying he had assistance in writing all that dreck? Never thought of that.

My resentment is aimed at stupid people throughout time and the systems that currently bind us. My love for men and women in general is boundless

>>11295280
Maybe we could date anon

>>11295217
No one who doesn't yet exist would suffer if people stopped having children. The cycle of suffering will go on for what may be millions of years because of what we're doing.

>>11295288
boo hoo quit bitching about suffering you big pansy

>>11295281
it is impossible to read Aquinas and come out thinking everything he wrote is just dreck. you can think he was, that he started from false premises, but the lucidity of his thought is almost unparalled. His system of reality is uniquely profound and accessible

I'm not Christian so I don't agree with him, but how can you say someone like Aquinas was stupid, it is just literally not true.

>>11295288
>millions of years
>implying Earth won't be Venus 2.0 in a matter of centuries

>>11295264
>Would you rather to never have been born?
This isn't the question. It isn't about "you", it's about a non-being who doesn't yet have any chips invested in the game of life, it's about how a burden is placed on something that has none.

>>11295281
just stalked you on warosu butterfly

This is from the same essay that OP's quote was taken, "On the Sufferings of the World":

"Certain it is that work, worry, labor and trouble, form the lot of almost all men their whole life long. But if all wishes were fulfilled as soon as they arose, how would men occupy their lives? what would they do with their time? If the world were a paradise of luxury and ease, a land flowing with milk and honey, where every Jack obtained his Jill at once and without any difficulty, men would either die of boredom or hang themselves; or there would be wars, massacres, and murders; so that in the end mankind would inflict more suffering on itself than it has now to accept at the hands of Nature."

Bleak as this outlook is, what Schope is saying boils down to a utilitarian anti-natalist argument. If life is inherently defeating and entropy and time will eventually erase all things, and if most human lives probably aren't worth living, is it unethical to reproduce?

Being an anti-natalist on a saturday night?

God that's pathetic.

>>11295151
>>11295190
>>11295244

cringe. dude you need a break. your logic is inferior.

>>11295314
>utilitarian
>anti-natalist

Can one argument get more reddit?

>>11295313
is this one you? the file naming gives me a reason to believe it was you but you removed your trip

>>11295310
At this point the argument becomes pure semantic sophistry. You can't place a burden on something that doesn't exist.

>>11295315
Principles don't take a day off, regardless of what liberals would have you believe.

>>11295330

>>11295330
but antinatalists are all liberals

>>11295323
this one was rather unflattering

>>11295323
tfw no tripfag mommy gf

>>11295314
The tragic thing about this quote is that even if all your bodily needs were satisfied, and physical want utterly abolished, a certain madness and ennui still results. Scope's recommend we take shelter in art, music, and intellectual contemplation, but those pursuits for me have only ever been a thin buffer against the all-consuming darkness and a diluted sedative for the ravening longings of the will.

At the same time I'm sympathetic to Nietzsche's worldview, who accepted S's core tenets of atheism and that will lies at the core of nature, but strongly rejected the abnegation of the philosophy. N believed that a powerful enough spirit can assert that their life is worth living and that's a much more affirming message.

>>11295342
>but antinatalists are all liberals

>>11295322
Can one reply get more worthless?

>>11295368
Depends on your value system

>>11295328
When you reproduce you create something that will experience the burdens that accompany existence. If you do not reproduce no burdens exist, just as no fire exists if you do not burn your house down.

>>11295190
I think you should open the blinds, it might do you some good

>>11295295
I dismiss it as such, but I have heard bits and pieces, and I did not care for it.

>>11295350
It is. Please don't repost.

>>11295353
I am your mother.
(The nudes are obviously not me)

>>11295377
Mum, should I go read some Epicurus?

Life is full of suffering and is meant to be, to give up because you've ran into a rut of suffering is weak and pathetic, and life is about improving from hardships to reach a personal sense of fulfilment. Giving up at the first hurdle leads to the true slave morality.

>>11295377
HAH OBVIOUSLHY MATE SINCE WE ALL KNOW WHAT YOU LOOK LIKE

TYPICAL FEMALE DEFLECTING AND UTTER LACK OF SHAME GET OUT OF HERE YOU ABSOLUTE ROASTIE

>>11295377
i would fuck you butterfly, you’re unbelievably annoying and suffer dunning-kreuger like all female trips but i would give you my body for the night

>>11295066
It's easy to call existence a curse if you focus your attention on the suffering that exists. But it is also possible to focus your attention on the pleasure that exists and conclude that existence is a boon.

>>11295377
>(The nudes are obviously not me)
I don't think it is so obvious

>>11295388
Or you could do both and conclude that in despite the of the highs and lows, your life is still a great experience worth taking to its proper end

>>11295394
>>11295376
also is that a bong on your windowsill or other drug paraphernalia?

>>11295375
>When you reproduce you create something that will experience the burdens that accompany existence
You could use the same logic to argue that choosing not to have a baby is the equivalent of killing him, because you are denying him existence.

But again, this whole argument rests on the specious presupposition that there can be an objective way to determine if life is worth living or not.

>>11295388
>disease
>famine
>genocide
>stupidity
>innate drives
>Simon Cowell

Yeah, but you forgot
>ice cream

>>11295330
>>11295342
>>11295365
Maybe he's thinking rightwing liberal.
The rightwinger who has been converted to capitalism can get as "anti-natal" as the left-liberal. The rightwing I would guess is far more depressed though. If they've lost faith in god and hereafters they'd probably fall for this nihilistic crap

>>11295377
>It is. Please don't repost.
ok, please don't get upset I just crave the attention as much as you

>>11295377
I remember you being nicer, what happened?

>>11295397
>>11295388
>Life is what u make!!!! be happy and u will find happy be sad and u will find sad life is just a bundle of joy ha!

Don't you have facebook quotes to procure for silly moms to repost to their friends?

>>11295388
Someone stealing your bike is a boon because they've derived more pleasure from taking your bike than you derived suffering from having your bike atolen.

>>11295415
lol nice ressentiment you bitter jealous faggot

go kill yourself

>>11295422
>you're just jealous
Nice blind, unfounded assertion you utter hedonist and brute.

>>11295406
you realize you are proving me right? you are focusing on the bad and ignoring the good, so of course things will look bleak

>>11295408
>my ideals are shown again and again to never be met by reality
>lmao better keep trying anyway
If you think life is worth living as a leftist, you're under an illusion.

>>11295431
>Nice blind, unfounded assertion you utter hedonist and brute.

Not just jealous anon, also a bitter resentful faggot

>>11295066
>What could refute this?
"One cannot refute a disease of the eye." — Nietzsche

>>11295435
We should bring new people into an existence where they're not immune to experiencing all of the bad that exists because they're also not immune to experiencing all of the good you have in your mind is your argument? Why do you believe this?

>>11295408
were you born a female? (one has to be sure)

>>11295415
>everyone who disagrees with my pathologically pessimist weltanschauung is a soccer mom

>>11295467
one needn't be sure, a cute feminine penis or an axe wound, both are good..I think

>>11295410
Cranky today maybe. Lot of issues going on here.

>>11295437
This is a confusing post. The green text is surely *your* thoughts.
And whatever a "leftist" is, I am happy.

A bundle of particles making a gang of microbes and experiencing all this amazing place. This? Delusion? That's not the traditional definition of the word.

Do you contemplate suicide, anon?

>>11295466
What I'm saying is that arguing that life is not worth living because there's suffering is as valid as arguing that life is worth living because there's pleasure. You would only be able to pick one over the other if there was a way of objectively measuring life's suffering against life's pleasure, and that is clearly impossible.

>>11295450
Based.

>>11295467
Yeah.

>>11295498
my butterfly collection is up to 20, can anyone top it

>>11295498
Just more proof that Nietzsche appeals to women.

>>11295507
tfw butterfly looks confusingly like my mother

>>11295519
me too not really

>>11295514
Goethe did too. Men who appeal to women are usually good men.

>>11295405
>You could use the same logic to argue that choosing not to have a baby is the equivalent of killing him, because you are denying him existence.
I disagree. When you don't reproduce you do nothing in this context and that should be the baseline when we're discussing this topic. Only when you reproduce are you affecting reality in such a way that something is happening in this context. It's akin to pressing a button to assemble a set of electrical signals that simulate suffering versus simply not doing that at all.

>>11295350

>>11295526
Goethe appealed to women because he was a poet. Nietzsche appealed to women because his admittedly fantastic writing style obscured his vacuous philosophical thought.

>>11295493
>A bundle of particles making a gang of microbes and experiencing all this amazing place. This? Delusion? That's not the traditional definition of the word.
No leftist has ever got what they want. Rightists have shitty goals, but at least they're achievable: ethnic cleansing, imprisoning "problem groups", living in a sheltered community.

>Do you contemplate suicide, anon?
That stopped when I realised no one else would feed my dog.

>>11295537
t. eternally butthurt Anglo

>>11295400
That's pretty obviously a candlestick, guy.

>>11295537
No. Goethe appealed to women because he didn't publicly show his utter disdain for the world. Nietzsche appeals to women because he asserted the blind will to live which is the reality every woman lives in almost without exception.

>>11295543
>ethnic cleansing, imprisoning "problem groups"
Isn't this what the left wing Soviets did though?

>>11295532
Naw man.

>>11295544
t. NIDF

>>11295551
Hello, Arthur.

>>11295556
>The Kronstadt
No. This is what was done *to* them.

>>11295556
They were means.

>>11295557
>someone would rather look like bjork than john travolta
This is why women are losing

>>11295527
>that should be the baseline when we're discussing this topic
Well I'm challenging that
>It's akin to pressing a button to assemble a set of electrical signals that simulate suffering versus simply not doing that at all.
A human being isn't a set of electrical signals so this reduction doesn't make sense.
1.You press the button -> a human being comes into existence
2.You don't press the button -> a human being doesn't come into existence, thus you denied him existence. Now you need to justify why 2, aka denying a person their existence, is moral.
If I remember correctly, Benatar argues that while existence brings pains as well as pleasures, non-existence is a lack of pains and pleasures. While pain is bad, absence of pain and pleasure is not bad, so it is always worse to be than not to be.
But there can be no absence of pain and pleasure without a subject. You can't inflict something on something that doesn't exist.

>>11295586
>someone would rather a tripfag rather look like john travolta rather than rather look as she does which is rather like bjork who rather looks like my mother

Seems like you've got some psychological stuff repressed there buddy

>>11295567
>>11295557
why don't you ever open the blinds (you should get some sunshine)

>>11295450
based

>>11295066
If you were more reasonable you would know not everyone is/going to be a depressed fagot like you.

>>11295632
>>11295066
Although with your genes that may be true for your progeny.

>>11295614
That was years ago, but I think they were drawn to keep the glare off the screen.
I am naturally pale, but the computer glow does make it look somewhat worse.

>>11295557
>>11295669
I deleted the other thread, sorry I will leave you alone. I realised my actions were in a way harmful when I thought I was merely making a jest. I apologise and will stop spamming your pictures. please forgive me

>>11295151
Based misandry poster, you have my respect.

>>11295674
>Doggy posting
Way better than frog or shrek posting imo.

No offense taken, anon.

>>11295669
Get a tan and I'll date you.

I'm the kind of guy you'd (and any girl desu) want. I am vaguely aware of who Nietzsche was and I have read at least 6 books that weren't set by school.

>>11295288
But the cycle of happiness will stop too if people stopped having children.
God damn you pessimists are the biggest bunch of bitches in the universe. If you're such a pussy that you can't handle suffering you always have the option to kys. There is literally no downside to life. If you enjoy it great. If you suffer that sucks but you have the option to kys if you're done with suffering or continue and wait for your luck to turn.

>>11295596
>You can't inflict something on something that doesn't exist.
Once there is something that exists there is something that will suffer. When there isn't something that exists there is nothing that will suffer. There is an absence of pain and pleasure in non-existence just as there is an absence of boxes and furniture in an empty room.

>>11295707
>b-but killing yourself is bad and hurts :((((((((((((((((((((((

>>11295707
>There is literally no downside to life
I can't even say "I imagine when I was this naive", because I have always had more or the same level of awareness as a moth.

You are a trivial thing.

>>11295736
and you are a big, handsome, intelligent man anon

>>11295743
Tell me something I don't know.

>>11295719
You are again sidestepping the problem. You need to provide a reason why the fact that a human will suffer is enough of a reason to deny him the possibility to exist. By deciding to deny him existence you aren't "sparing him from suffering" because he doesn't exist in the first place. Suffering is always referred to a subject that suffers. You are, in fact, arguing that no lifes are worth living.

>>11295707
>>11295721
You are saying that people should have as many kids as they so please and that they should do so with the idea that if the children are ever in a state of permanent or abject suffering then suicide is always on the table for those children. Do you really believe this? Why?

What you've both proposed means that the rate of reproduction shouldn't cease or slow down if there were a great plague because offspring afflicted by the outbreak can always commit suicide.

>>11295759
>You are saying that people should have as many kids as they so please
No, local antinatalism and global antinatalism are two entirely different things. One can hold that reproduction isn't immoral in itself, but it may be in some particular cases.

>>11295751
If you leave an empty room without furnishing then that is all you're doing. By not creating furniture to place in that room you aren't denying it allowance into the room because it isn't in the world to be placed.

If you aren't satisfied with that then you have to admit that you hold the belief that there's an infinitely large pool of people, without existence, who are being done a disservice every second that human beings don't reproduce. I can't argue that because this isn't a falsifiable claim.

I stand by the position that there is a line between not reproducing and therefore not bringing about new suffering into our universe, and no life being worth continuing. When the latter is carried out to its logical extremes, you are hurting people who exist, in the former you are not, regardless of your views on non-existent people. Again, because this might be lost, I can't argue that this is better or worse than "not denying your potential child existence" because the idea that you're doing that by not reproducing is not falsifiable.

>>11295767
I fail to see the distinction, in both the local and global reference points, no matter what they are, there is a non-0% chance that any potential child will suffer abjectly or permanently. There is a 100% chance that they will experience a type of suffering. Given that, how is the creation of new life not immoral in all cases?

You are playing dice with life as your medium.

>>11295839
>If you aren't satisfied with that then you have to admit that you hold the belief that there's an infinitely large pool of people, without existence, who are being done a disservice every second that human beings don't reproduce
Well, this is a consequence of your thinking, that you can do a disservice to something that doesn't exist. I don't hold this position, i'm only showing what your position (ie the button experiment) eventually leads too. If you hold that you're doing a human a disservice by bringing him into existence you must also hold that there's the possibility of the contrary, since you've established the non-existent as an object of morality.
>Unfalsifiable
This debate has nothing to do with science since we're talking about morality so I don't see how falsifiability is relevant.
>I stand by the position that there is a line between not reproducing and therefore not bringing about new suffering into our universe, and no life being worth continuing.
Well ok, but why? If you're saying that you should not reproduce because the child will suffer you are in fact saying that his life will not be worth living, that the suffering overrides the worthiness of him living his life, and since you do not know how the life of the child will be you must be doing this on the ground that life is inherently (indipendently of circustances) not worth living. Therefore, no life is worth living.

>>11295904
>If you're saying that you should not reproduce because the child will suffer you are in fact saying that his life will not be worth living
I don't shoot myself when I have a headache but I try to take measures to make sure that I never do have one. A life where I have a terrible, debilitating, headache is not worth starting, a life where I have a headache is not worth ending or, if it is, it may not be for other people who exist. I know that reproducing would have a non-0% chance of bringing about a status of suffering that is not worth starting and that not doing so would prevent this without anyone getting hurt as a consequence of my inaction.

>>11295991
>I don't shoot myself when I have a headache but I try to take measures to make sure that I never do have one.
I never talked about suicide, nor about "ending lifes", you're inferring this yourself but I only talked about the condition of the yet to be born child.
>I know that reproducing would have a non-0% chance of bringing about a status of suffering that is not worth starting and that not doing so would prevent this without anyone getting hurt as a consequence of my inaction.
Again, you're focusing only on the "suffering" part and by doing so you sidestep the problem I'm positing you. When you decide not to bring this yet-to-be-born child into existence you are denying the possibility that he will suffer, yes, but only as a consequence of the fact that you are denying him his existence in the first place. You need to show why this is moral, why this is the correct curse of action, why the fact that life is suffering (and it is) entails that life is not worth living.

>>11295264
>"Is your life worth living?" and "Would you rather to never have been born?" are in practice the same question
>"Should you get someone addicted to heroin?" and "should you help already addicted heroin users through withdrawals with methadone" are in practice the same question
Do you see what you did wrong there?

>>11296090
Do you see what you did wrong there?

>>11296090
No, you're strawmanning because in the question "is your life worth living" the object of our moral enquiry is an already alive person.
Furthermore you're using a nonsensical rhetorical trick "life"="heroin"="bad"

post memes with us at general lit discord

https://discord.gg/DfguqBW

>>11296116
both of the lit discords are shit, one is just shitposting, the other is just a social club for lonely autists

>>11296060
>I never talked about suicide, nor about "ending lifes", you're inferring this yourself but I only talked about the condition of the yet to be born child.
If I were to say that life is not worth living then I'd be saying that life is not worth continuing and if I'm saying that, then the implication is there that everyone should end their lives. I've explained why that isn't the case to draw a line of distinction between an existing person dying prematurely and an indefinite period of inaction when it comes to reproduction.

>When you decide not to bring this yet-to-be-born child into existence you are denying the possibility that he will suffer, yes, but only as a consequence of the fact that you are denying him his existence in the first place
Is there not a difference between the two statements "when you don't reproduce you deprive something the opportunity to experience" and "when you don't reproduce you aren't creating something that will experience"? I've tried to argue for the latter, that position is moral because it has no downsides, contrary to the opposing position that does carry with it a whole set of downsides.

>>11296130
Which is why he's inviting you.
Go on now. Say hi to the other kids.

>>11296300
d-don't tell me what to do

>>11296300
Ugly dyke.

>>11296097
>>11296109
Wrong.
It's an analogy and it's valid.
There's a difference between getting someone addicted vs. dealing with someone who's already addicted.
It's impossible to feel like you're missing out on anything if you were never born to begin with, whereas people who are already alive can and do feel like they're missing out on something if you take away things they enjoy.
The capacity for wanting works like an addiction, which is why it isn't actually the same thing to not create that capacity for wanting vs. taking action in conflict with an already existing person's already existing capacity for wanting.

>>11296274
>If I were to say that life is not worth living then I'd be saying that life is not worth continuing and if I'm saying that, then the implication is there that everyone should end their lives.
There's a whole lot of difference between saying that one's life is not worth living and saying that this implies that one should kill himself. Given that you're an antinatalist that argues on the internet, people probably tell you to kill yourself quite a lot so you should know this. Antinatalists, such as Benatar, themselves say that there's a difference between antinatalism and pro-mortalism so I'm working with this framework here.
>Is there not a difference between the two statements "when you don't reproduce you deprive something the opportunity to experience" and "when you don't reproduce you aren't creating something that will experience"?
I don't see how. You are infact arguing against reproduction because it force people to live and living is bad because life is suffering. Thus the solution is to not reproduce. Which in practice means that you're saying that it's ok to deny a children his life because his life won't be worth living.

The bigger problem with antinatalism, but this is another point, is that it takes the value judgements from utilitarianism (suffering = bad, pleasure = good) and it abstracts them as impersonal moral principles, forgetting that utilitarianism posits this moral distinction to solve the problem of HUMAN SUBJECTS, and them going (voluntarly) exinct wouldn't be a problem for antinatalism. But why these cathegories have an antihuman validity Benatar never tells us.

>>11296330
No, it's a strawman. But if it wasn't it's a wrong analogy because life can't be reduced to an addiction. If you stop someone from being addicted you aren't denying him existence. Entirely specious analogy.

>>11296405
>deny a children his life because his life won't be worth living
The concept of denying someone something only makes sense if it's someone who's already alive and has a sense of wanting.
If you were never alive to begin with it would be impossible to make you feel like you missed out on anything.

>>11296426
But even if it wasn't it's still*

>>11296426
>If you stop someone from being addicted you aren't denying him existence.
That's the point you retard, if they were literally the same thing it wouldn't be an analogy.

>>11296429
If you ascribe to this notion then it's impossible to argue than reproduction is wrong either, since nonexistent things can't be moral objects.

>>11296436
I am telling you that it's not a correct analogy to make because stopping a life from being born is not analogous to stopping an addiction, you dumbfuck.

>>11296439
No, they're not symmetrical. Without a capacity for wanting, not beginning to exist isn't a bad thing.
Without a capacity for suffering, beginning to exist is a bad thing because you're creating the capacity for suffering.
Creating the capacity for wanting isn't an equal / opposite good thing in contrast, it's actually another sort of bad thing because in doing that you're also creating the capacity for deprivation.

>>11296446
Yeah, no, you wrote this:
>>11296426
>If you stop someone from being addicted you aren't denying him existence.
Which demonstrates you do not understand how analogies work.
The entire point of an analogy is clarifying one thing in terms of another thing, not clarifying one thing in terms of some retarded comparison to itself.

tripfags must perish

>>11296405
>Which in practice means that you're saying that it's ok to deny a children his life because his life won't be worth living.
There is no need to assign a particular being to the concept of an absence of suffering. All we need to know is that this absence is "there".

>>11295383
>Fullfilment
The foolish adventures of Independence, where nothing is build and nothing will ever be. Such people are incapable of ever leaving one legacy for the future. They are the living dead, aimlessly wandering across the lands they were born until something finally puts them off their misery. But hey, at least they live "fullfilling" lives, am I right? Oh, the patheticness. How small can men become just to become slaves of their atavism.

>>11296463
Yes I'm aware of Benatar's asymetry thank you very much, I've already provided a counter argument in >>11296405 ie ascribing subject-based value judgements to nonexistent things

>>11296470
My entire point is that it's not analogous, not becoming addicted is not analogous to not coming into life

>>11295881
Not only suffering for the child itself, but also the suffering as a whole he will create on earth. The child will also need clothes, made my people in third world countries, food, that's made by ruining tropical forests, etc.

>>11296520
Suffering always refers to a being, it doesn't exist independently of beings.

>>11296507
>Perishers must trip

>>11296524
You wrote A isn't B, not A isn't analogous to B.
Stop backpedaling.
Also you haven't made an argument for why the two aren't analogous that isn't "A isn't B," so if you go ahead and make that argument I can stop reminding you that you don't understand analogies.

>>11295388
Better yet: do not be so self-centered and small-minded as to focus on your existence and the human condition. Only really inferior philosophies advocate using life itself as the basis of their reasoning. See Buddhism for an example.

>>11296548
I'm an anti-natalist, but perhaps we could adopt a coyote together? We could call it Eugene Debbs, move to Oregon, and teach it to snap at the heels of boomers and Clinton supporters?

>>11296556
Buddhism is for life denying bitches

>>11296555
Because
1. life isn't necesarilly bad, this is a rhetorical trick that you're using and you're doing so without justification
2. if you are stopping someone from coming into life you are denying the totality of human experience and denying his existence, something that stopping someone from becoming addicted clearly doesn't entail

you haven't provided an argument for why they are analogous either, you have simply stated the analogy without justification and ruined a pretty chill discussion with your retardation

>>11295281
>My love for men and women in general is boundless
>>11295151
>Men were a mistake.
seems pretty bounded

>>11296524
>I've already provided a counter argument in >>11296405
I don't think it works.
It looks something like this:
A) Benatar argues from utilitarianism
B) Utilitarianism is for humanity
C) Humanity going extinct would be bad
Not seeing where C is coming from though. You can serve the interests of a given thing without forcing it to continue existing.
The fact pets are put to sleep on a regular basis is enough to show that. You're helping a dog or cat in severe pain from a terminal illness by sparing it from suffering. If you had some science fiction way of keeping a cancer stricken cat or dog alive indefinitely for thousands of years in a way where it went through as much suffering as any other cancer stricken cat or dog only multiplied by the extra amount of time you've extended its existence, I'm pretty sure you'd be considered immoral by almost anyone who learned of what you were doing.

>>11296595
a mistake can still be loved anon :)

>>11296584
What is your position in life?

>>11296544
Not suffering can exist independently of beings. Nothingness is not suffering, nothingness is not feeling pleasure and nothingness is not living.

>>11296600
;_;

>>11296607
I don't have one

chase what feels good and laugh at what made me feel bad

just some aesthetic pleasurable shit man, I'll get more ethical when despair catches up to me but it's got a while to go yet

>>11296584
I meant that Buddhism is an example of the kind of pragmatic philosophy that affirms life and pathetically centers itself around life, not the opposite. True denial of life is when you surpass the Wanting for life and put something above it.

>>11296599
>A) Benatar argues from utilitarianism
No, my point is exactly the opposite. Benatar rejects negative utilitarianism (we ought to reduce suffering) because he knows that it will eventaully lead him to pro-mortalism, something he doesn't like, so he takes the value judgements from utilitarianism (suffering = bad, pleasure = good) and abstracts them into a-subjective cathegories of morality by forgetting that utilitarianism doesn't make sense without a subject it is referring to, hence his famous asimmetry where he uses utilitarian reasoning towards nonexistent beings.

>>11296609
>Not suffering can exist independently of beings
Nope, "non suffering" can't exist without a being who isn't suffering just as blindness can't exist without a being who is blind.

>>11296631
Keep your innocence while you can. Just try not to be a dick in the process.

>>11296590
>if you are stopping someone from coming into life you are denying
No. You can't experience deprivation if you don't have a capacity for wanting.
This is why the addiction analogy is helpful.
>without justification
The justification is exactly what you missed above here by talking about "denying" something when no capacity for wanting has been established yet.
You're doing something analogous to wrongly projecting the needs of an addict onto a non-addict. Just because an addict will suffer withdrawals without their drug doesn't mean you're creating the same distress in a non-addict by not giving them their first hit.
Just because an already living and wanting person will suffer from deprivation without life doesn't mean you're creating the same deprivation in a non-living person by not creating them and the capacity for wanting that would go along with their creation.

>>11296646
I've been a right cunt in the pursuit of my joy and that of my boys

>>11296639
>utilitarianism doesn't make sense without a subject it is referring to
There is a subject he's referring to.

>>11296647
I never appealed to the desires of the nonexist being to make my argument, only to the possible moral duty of the one who ought to decide if stopping a baby from coming into existence is moral or not.

>>11296660
Nonexist things aren't subjects, because they don't fucking exist.

>>11296659
>my boys
Surely you haven't inflicted existence upon others? Will forbid. Or are your "boys" your male lovers?

I hope it's the latter, sodomy is the only ethical form of sex.

>>11296645
Not seeing doesn't necessarily mean to be blind. A piece of paper cannot see but it isn't blind. Blindness is a state of impairment. Not seeing and not suffering isn't necessarily the state of impairment and can be practically used to refer to objects that could never, by conception, see or suffer, or it can refer to non-beings. An section of empty space is not suffering, it isn't a place where suffering exists and it isn't capable of suffering.

>>11296595
It's a meme, you dip.

>>11296680
Nope, to "not suffer" the object needs to have the capacity of suffering in the first place. Would you say empty space is "not suffering"? This is what I'm talking about when I say Benetar abstracts subject-based cathegories of morality into a-subjective ones. The "not suffering" is good only when it refers to a subject.

>>11296702
to further illustrate my point

>>11296702
>>11296722
A place that doesn't have this is probably a better place that does have this.

>>11296722
Things can be objectively (mind-independently) good or bad, you fucking mong.

>>11296722
now that I think about it you could expand B's asymmetry into implying that everything is moral except life that can experience suffering, which is pretty funny

>>11296693
do you mean an allusion?
my bounty is as boundless as the sea,
my love as deep; the more i give to thee the more i have, for both are infinite.

>>11296742
>Things can be objectively (mind-independently) good or bad, you fucking mong.
How? Even Russell stopped believing in such things.

>>11296742
no fucking shit, I'm saying that Benatar has no justification in taking subject-based cathegories of morality (which doesn't mean "subjective") and abstracting them into a-subjective without justification.
also, objective doesn't mean mind indipendant but subject indipendant, reread your kant.

>>11296763
anyways, I'm going to sleep
good night faggots

>people who have never experienced the raising of a child think they have authority to comment on other people raising children
Really sizzles my thinkpan

>>11296778
>people who have never thrown acid on their fellow man think they have the authority to comment on other people throwing acid

>>11296778
>people who have never experienced not raising children intentionally think they have authority to comment on other people not raising children

>>11296792
>Non-bongs BTFO

>>11296745
This is true though.

Most of civilization's problems come from people who shouldn't be having kids reproducing. But it's one of those things that's very tricky and ethically swampy to presume to regulate. Ideally the people who shouldn't be having kids themselves should have the self-awareness not to reproduce, but the very lack of it is what puts them in that category to begin with.

Nazi eugenics programs were onto something, since people are just as breedable as dogs or any other organism and a successful eugenicized society would exhibit many more desirable behaviors than one that is allowed to propagate mistakes aimlessly.

But I don't see how you can get this without a huge ethical infraction and massive curtailing of individual freedom. Nobody wants to be told by the government they are too dumb to reproduce or that by procreating they will only spread bad genes that will lead to suffering.

>>11296828
No one should reproduce.

>>11296828
No government - always made up of fallible morons, as they are - is capable of making such judgements. Only I am.

And, as far as I'm concerned, only one person I have met has ever deserved to father children (and he hung himself in Snowdonia National Park).

>>11296722
Is it not good that a volcano is devoid of human sacrifices?

>>11295248
>pays out on Schopenhauer
>lol it’s my drive to live!
The irony is delicious

>>11295190
you'll be thanking your lucky stars men invented epidurals one day.

>>11295248
>my drive to live

you should understand what someone is saying before you criticize what someone is saying.

>>11295066
Looking at the news doesn't even show the smallest fraction of human suffering.
Nobody will ever know it, and I don't know why you would want to.
Just kys while you still can.

>>11296828
I'd agree with this if it was possible to genetically code someone to not suffer with 100% certainty, but I highly doubt that's possible.

>>11298155
>>11299089
lol faggots like you can spend time trying to understand things

I'm too busy living

>>11299103

>>11299104
Nice cope lifelet

>>11295217
The will to live is a primitive biological drive, like the desire to rape, murder, and eat other humans. It is even more forceful in our species than all the other Dionysian pleasures because no one can firmly identify if the alternative - what lies beyond the border line to eternity - might be more gratifying to the ego, whereas the bounty of a healthily cultivated civilization can be tasted and felt around with one's own hand, with a certainty that need not be questioned because the fruit is so sweet and ripe as to mitigate all curiosity about how we might have gone about the business of living before this cultivation of decency, of 'humanity': a word that obfuscates a much less noble and more callow meaning in its pretension of antediluvian truth.

Life is cowardice. The human convinces itself that the shameful pleasure of life is noble because it can then justify the pain that comes immediately after, or very often even during the experiencing of this pleasure. Simply because we consent to one another's depravity, we are satisfied with it, and enshrine it in the holy playbook of civilization.

And in doing so, we commit a cardinal treachery against our fellow man, which reaches its peak when we tell him his life has worth and that he should regard with privilege his divine place in the kingdom of ends, which is just the opposite - it is a kingdom of means, and its ends are finite, nor charitably distributed, and regarded with total certainty in the eye of the beholder.

>>11295066
This is speculation, not an evidenced based position. There's nothing to refute

What's there to refute? Reproduction simply doesn't follow Schopey's idea of reason.

So much disinfo in this thread.

Humanity is nothing more than one manifestation of the dreaming godhead. The only reason most of us think any different is because we've come to identify with our flawed, biological bodies and haven't been shown the way out of this limiting perception.

Bringing children into the world or not is entirely arbitrary. Their souls should continue to exist, just not on this certain plane of existence. One may chose to procreate or not based on personal values, but from a cosmic perspective, such decisions are irrelevant.

Suffering is but the misplaced faith that the dream is real.

>>11296737
what the fuck happened to that guy? who or what is he?

>>11301160
Looks to be a bad case of leprosy.

>>11301022
This.

>>11301160
Injected one marihuana.

>>11301022
>Suffering is but the misplaced faith that the dream is real.

Sure,sure! Stab yourself in the eyes with a screwdriver several times and tell me you believe this bullshit, mr "godhead".
Also:
>souls

pic related

>>11295190
Incredibly based

>>11295151
The wall is approaching, roastie.