/lit/ - Literature

I'm not gay

A girl looked at me once (several years ago), so I simply have too much hope to embrace antinatalism.

>>12591945
Life is great and I’m glad I was born

>>12591945
Idk why this guy is relevant. If he'd read hume no one would have heard of him.
assuming he's intellectually honest of course

being a pussy: the worldview

>>12591945
>Suffering isn't bad.
An entire ideology defeated in one clause.

Antinatalism is a moral utilitarian philosophy stemming from the reality of hard determinism, but hard determinism only justifies moral nihilism. Taking a moral stance on the creation of suffering beings in a universe where things could not happen otherwise doesn't make sense.

>>12591945
Pat?

>>12591945
>Brainletar

He does more to harm the cause than further it to be honest. I am the ultimate antinatalist thinker.

>>12592773

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpZO6hcU_YQ

>>12592785
I am a dystheistic antinatalist. I am an antinatalist specifically because I know God and Hell exist. Also you can't just tell people you don't like to be moral nihilists so they are more convenient to argue against; you have to prove it.

>>12592803
I never claimed that sufferring is GOOD you dumb dumb poo poo head; I simply stated that it isn't BAD. Anti-natalism STILL defeated in one (1) clause.

>>12592803
Strawman. The guy in the video attacks the claim:
suffering is good
That poster said:
suffering is not bad
in other words not evil.
Try again

>>12592797
>there is an absence of benefit in existence
What's the reasoning behind that one?
>muh nihilism

>>12592815
Suffering is good, though.
Not universally, but what is universally good?

>>12592815
>>12592819

t. didn't watch the video. The guy makes the point that suffering is only "not bad" or even "good" to the extent that it leads to an ultimate benefit, therefore the benefit is the good part and the suffering is just a necessary, evil if you will, which demonstrates the absurdity of the hedonic treadmill.

>>12592823
You can never be completely without appetites, wants and needs. Every appetite that isn't satiated is a harm in kind, but its impossible to personally exist without appetites.

>>12592836
You're misinterpreting the point. The point is that suffering isn't evil or bad. Not because it leads to some benefit, but because it is has no value 'bad' attached to it. It's a subjective experience, that people experience as unpleasant. But that's no reason to see it as evil. Same goes for considering pleasure to be good.
The other guy will probably reply too. hi.

>>12592836
There are categorical differences between the two premises (affirmation of goodness, negation of badness). The dumb-cunt in the video only "rebutted" the former. My premise still stands.

>>12592851
But how is that an absence of benefit?
Benefits can be withheld, yes, but it's no absolute truth by any means. Everybody who lived more than a few days received benefits at some point, however minor.

>>12592878
I'm not saying its the absence of any benefit at all, I'm saying benefit is absent to some extent.

God, the West is so behind the East sometimes. India, China, and Japan figured all this shit out before English was even a language.

>read the Gita
>read the Vedas
>read the Canon
>cleave yourself from desire

>life is suffering
Who came up with this? A starving African?

>>12593129
Edit -- one Westerner came pretty close. And all on his own, too.

>read The Ethics

>>12592855
Right, so no experience have any value whatsoever. The void is preferable to this bullshit.

>>12593131

You're quoting the often-cited translation of "dukkha" as "suffering." It's not quite right.

Your senses cannot detect all of the world at once. They cannot. They, and your brain, limits the tsunami of information to a trickle, and then lets you desire based on that trickle. Dukkha is more accurately the gap between your perception of the world and the world as it actually exists -- the knowledge that no matter how hard you try, or how much you look, or how "free" you think you are, you will never be able to comprehend more than the barest sliver of one second of lived experience.

>>12592812
Yes but you are a very special case in that you are crazy and too up your own ass to realize it.

>>12592114
That's not inherently conflicting with antinatalism. Just take antinatalists who are so merely on account of the fact that beings can't consent to being born.

>>12592773
>>12592785

see >>12593179

>>12593106
Strictly speaking, when someone admits that hell exists and believes that most people go there, its natalism that becomes the crazy position.

>>12593236
whoops, meant for

>>12593179

>>12592785
>>12593214
>>12593179
Why does consent matter in a universe devoid of meaning? I'm a pessimist, I certainly find nothing worthwhile in the birth of conscious beings, I just don't think there's a compelling argument for antinatalism that's not made on moral grounds.

>>12593318
What's wrong with moral grounds? We live in a society.

>>12591972
Based, patrician, and high IQ 200+

>>12593179
Why is consent good/something desirable? Seems axiomatic

>>12593336
Wow, subtle

>>12593236
I've never really thought about it in those terms, but that is an interesting insight. Assuming their worldview is correct, and considering how much one's upbringing, among other things, shapes one as a person, there's a large number of people who, while not intentionally, have or will in a large way make it so their child will likely go to hell. It's pretty much inevitable that some number of them will birth hell-bound children.

>>12593355
Because otherwise you're forcing a being to either find a way to survive or find a way to die. That's not a dilemma I think people should have to face unless they want to.

>>12592812
Is this the last Albigensian?

>>12593442
>It's bad becuase I feel it's bad
Epic materialist atheist anti-natalist destroys critics with facts and logic

>>12594164
I'm not trying to convince anybody of my view, and I know I don't ultimately have an objective ground for defending my position, but you, or someone else, asked question and I answered. No need to for the snarky passive aggressive response.

>>12594237
Please ignore the typo お願いします

>>12594164
>I feel its bad because either the sentient being will be struggling against entropy its entire life or die possibly a very painful death

Seems like an argument to me, muchacho.

From what I heard of Benatar on Harris' podcast, he's just a cryptoutilitarian, he even admits that humanity might overcome antinatalism at some point, which defeats the very fucking purpose of antinatalism. Take the Zappfepill.

>>12594253
We've already established however that suffering isn't bad

>>12594298
Antinatalists are almost invariably run-of-the-mill utilitarians in action. Bunch of pussy-ass bitches, the lot of them

>>12594323
"WE" didn't establish anything. Suffering is bad by its very definition. Its like saying water is wet.

>>12594349
Depends how you define 'bad'. Suffering, if we go by definition, is a state which could be defined by it's unbearability, a state from which you strive to exit (ironically, this is why something like extreme sexual arousal could also be defined as suffering, even though its not painful). Nothing in that definition points to the 'badness' of suffering.
For example, I hate dairy products, but they're 'good' for my body. I suffer when I drink milk, yet can sense meaning and purpose to such an act.

>>12594349
>Suffering is bad by its very definition
Wow! Perennial philisophical question solved in one sentence; suffering is The Bad according to redditor. Tell me; is the suffering associated with the cultivation of physical prowess, or the raising of a family, or that suffering that leads to anything deemed good by the sufferer, bad?

>>12594393
>according to the redditor

Wow! Internet argumentation solved in a single word!

>>12594404
Bro, it's just bants. Don't take everything so seriously all the time

>>12594393
>>12594420
at any rate its not the suffering that is good, its the gain. Just because the suffering facilitates the gain doesn't mean the suffering itself is a good. The suffering of being hungry is the same in kind as the suffering of starving unto death, just a less severe form. As you are caught on the hedonic treadmill, suffering being hungry might facilitate the enjoyment of a nice meal but its not the hunger that is the good, its a satiety. If everyone could flip a switch to be blissed out all the time without any drawbacks, they would. After all this is what most adherents of religion believe they are striving towards.

>>12594440
>If everyone could flip a switch to be blissed out all the time without any drawbacks, they would.
What does "blissed out" even mean? Is this supposed to be a logical followup to your reductive reasoning for suffering becoming satiation? Are you saying that we would all want to be permanantly satisfied to remove ourselves from suffering? That's fucking bullshit.

>>12594440
>that guy who would unironically walk into the experience machine
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experience_machine

>>12594440
No one is claiming that suffering is good; my initial claim was simply that suffering is not bad. In additon, you fail to recognise that suffering may be inextricably tied to a given good; the good may not exist without the suffering tied to it.

>>12591945
What's the difference of hedonism and Antinatalism in terms of dealing with suffering in the life? is Antinatalism a subset of hedonism?

>>12594535
Antinatalism isn't about battling suffering, stop reading retards ITT. It's a moralistic ideology which claims that the act of childbirth is the most immoral act a man can possibly conduct.

>>12594535
antinatalism, while often coming about due to a particular view on suffering, is not inherently tied to anything suffering related. it's simply the belief that natalism is disagreeable. As stated somewhere else in this thread there are antinatalists concerned with autonomy chiefly or solely. In short, antinatalism = birth bad. That's it.

>>12593147
But that's just /your/ opinion

>>12594576
>In short, antinatalism = birth bad. That's it.
More like antinatalism = edgy bragging.
99% of antinatalism is just bragging.

>>12591945
It's not 2016 anymore.

>>12591945
David Benatar is fucking awful. If I could find the cunt who told me to read 'better never to have been' irl I'd claw his eyes out for having such shit taste.

>>12593179
Imagine thinking consent isn't worth absolute piss-all. You aren't an objective thinker. You're such a progressive zealot you can't even see it. It codes your entire worldview.

>>12593236
If you're 100% convinced hell is real I don't see why that should stop you reproducing. God can't make mistakes so everything that happens will be just. You can maybe read 1 Corinthians 7 (I think that's it) as an endorsement of total celibacy as an ideal but I don't think many people do that.

>>12594349
You niggers need De Maistre in your lives.

The fact that life is suffering and that reproduction has no value is something I came to realize on my own
I don’t need some Australian fucker to tell me that

>>12591966
FPBP
/thread

>>12595707
>Imagine thinking consent isn't worth absolute piss-all
Why is it?
>You're such a progressive zealot you can't even see it. It codes your entire worldview
Actually try to make an argument without ad homs, just try it.

>>12595896
Saying you shouldn't do what comes naturally to you because of consent is a positive claim. Try to defend it. Where are you getting your authority from?

>>12595907
Please point me to where I'm saying "shouldn't"

>>12595919
You seem to think consent has some kind of value.

>>12595927
Yep, I can't make an argument to it in an objective sense though. But again, why is it worth "absolute piss-all" ?

>>12595602
Bragging about what?

>>12595955
>>12595927
to add, "I think x to be disagreeable" != "x ought not to occur"

this is why it's best not to challenge someone on an argument they're not making

>>12596294
About this "antinatalism" embarrassing thing, maybe?

>>12595707
>God can't make mistakes so everything that happens will be Just

Yes, my antinatalism included

>>12595707
So rape, torture and murder are just, just because they happen as well?

I have no reason to follow moral principles because whatever I do is automatically part of God's perfect plan?

>>12591945
I'm asexual. I was born antinatalist.

Had a shit dad so I know what it's like to have a shit dad. Would never want to do that to somebody else. I'm a beta autistic manlet asexual vegan. I've got nothing good to teach a child or even good genetics to give them. There's no reason for me to reproduce.

>>12591945
>what's your excuse?

I have a pregnancy and childbirth fetish.

>>12596744

Based. We need more people like you.